Presidential Election 2016

[Tiller]

Look at the rates of change, not the final numbers.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... lysis.html

People with high incomes and college degrees shifted significantly towards Clinton, while people without college degrees and with low incomes shifted significantly to Trump. The data is clear.

[Archiapolis]

The problem with your argument is that Hillary's favorables were quite high at the outset. Look at the numbers from before around March of last year here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... html#polls

Her nonsense "baggage" gets traction in no small part because of misogyny. We would not have spent two years (or whatever) talking about the emails practices of a male candidate as if they mattered. We just wouldn't. Heck, they tried their damnedest to make a charity that provides AIDS drugs to millions of people a negative! The truth is people love Hillary except when she's actively campaigning. You think that's about her and not us?

As for Bernie, he's once again not a Democrat. That's all you really need to know about his movement. Given the chance (again) to work to make the party more progressive, he ran away. Because Bernie's about Bernie being right and pure and good. Not about making change.

I think it's insane, though, to think that a Jewish socialist would have beaten Trump in particular. Few things would have better gotten his voters to the polls. Maybe a gay Muslim socialist would have, but Bernie would have been the next best thing for Trump.

Would Biden or Warren? Maybe. They decided not to run.

This is why we lost. America's White Collar class has no idea what's going on with the Working Class. They view everything through the lens of social issues, when economic issues were the meat of this election.

The white working class' standard of living has been going down. Their life expectancy has been going down. Drug abuse, particularly Heroine and Alcohol, has gone significantly up. Educational attainment is shit. Their infrastructure is falling apart. Their Children have tens of thousands of dollars of student loans, because they tried to get white collar jobs like you guys, because all the blue collar jobs have been disappearing. Now they're struggling to survive, working in retail and fast food joints. They've been ignored and taken advantage of politically for decades. Socially, they've lost many of the overt privileges they used to enjoy, meaning that while their economic standing in society has significantly eroded, their social standing has as well. Beyond simply losing their privileges, classism among smug, well-off liberals is very common (stereotyped as "limousine liberals").

I have spoken to a great deal of people over the past year (nearly a year and a half now), and while the upper-middle class and the rich are doing well, no one else is. Issues like Immigration have both a cultural/social lens (being against it because it lets brown people in), and an economic lens (being against it because it depresses wages). While both things are part of the issue, people vote their pocketbooks, and it's the latter that most noticeably swung PA, OH, WI, and MI (and I'm sure its also what swung IA, FL, and NC, they're just not as stereo-typically blue collar). The economics and politics of the situation are deeply intertwined.

The Zeitgeist has been clear to those who have been on both sides of the fence for a while. Those polls that showed Hillary 1% up against Trump (and Bernie up by significantly more) months ago nailed it. Trump is horribly unpopular. If you just blame -isms for why he won instead of examining where we went wrong, he will win again in 2020.

I'm sorry to say that this post mortem seems largely accurate.

Democrats are NOT connecting with "lower class" white people right now - it's just a fact (as borne out by this election). Educated progressives can continue to heap scorn and ridicule on this group of people or work to actually COMMUNICATE A F@CKING MESSAGE to them that progressive policies work to their advantage.

Maybe it is impossible to surmount centuries of racism and sexism but writing this group off completely will lead to similar outcomes in the future. What if it weren't impossible though...

[amiller92]

This is stolen from a friend who is far more eloquent than I (on a different forum):

Are you serious? Democrats ignored/excluded/offended blue collar middle class whites more than Republicans? Free trade isn't an idea espoused by Democrats. Union busting isn't a Democratic value. Cutting taxes for the rich while pretending it will create jobs and benefit working class people isn't a Democratic principle. Fighting investment in job-creating and desperately needed infrastructure projects was not a part of the Democrat approach. Permitting companies to take jobs overseas while protecting that income from taxation is something all politicians permitted.

If you're talking about pretend issues like reverse racism and forced gay cake-selling, then yeah. They were completely ignored and excluded. But if all it takes is the siren song of a race-baiting bullshit artist who has spent his life shitting on the very people who voted for him in overwhelming numbers, the conclusion you drew above just doesn't make any sense.

[acs]

The problem with your argument is that Hillary's favorables were quite high at the outset. Look at the numbers from before around March of last year here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... html#polls

Her nonsense "baggage" gets traction in no small part because of misogyny. We would not have spent two years (or whatever) talking about the emails practices of a male candidate as if they mattered. We just wouldn't. Heck, they tried their damnedest to make a charity that provides AIDS drugs to millions of people a negative! The truth is people love Hillary except when she's actively campaigning. You think that's about her and not us?

As for Bernie, he's once again not a Democrat. That's all you really need to know about his movement. Given the chance (again) to work to make the party more progressive, he ran away. Because Bernie's about Bernie being right and pure and good. Not about making change.

I think it's insane, though, to think that a Jewish socialist would have beaten Trump in particular. Few things would have better gotten his voters to the polls. Maybe a gay Muslim socialist would have, but Bernie would have been the next best thing for Trump.

Would Biden or Warren? Maybe. They decided not to run.

This is why we lost. America's White Collar class has no idea what's going on with the Working Class. They view everything through the lens of social issues, when economic issues were the meat of this election.

The white working class' standard of living has been going down. Their life expectancy has been going down. Drug abuse, particularly Heroine and Alcohol, has gone significantly up. Educational attainment is shit. Their infrastructure is falling apart. Their Children have tens of thousands of dollars of student loans, because they tried to get white collar jobs like you guys, because all the blue collar jobs have been disappearing. Now they're struggling to survive, working in retail and fast food joints. They've been ignored and taken advantage of politically for decades. Socially, they've lost many of the overt privileges they used to enjoy, meaning that while their economic standing in society has significantly eroded, their social standing has as well. Beyond simply losing their privileges, classism among smug, well-off liberals is very common (stereotyped as "limousine liberals").

I have spoken to a great deal of people over the past year (nearly a year and a half now), and while the upper-middle class and the rich are doing well, no one else is. Issues like Immigration have both a cultural/social lens (being against it because it lets brown people in), and an economic lens (being against it because it depresses wages). While both things are part of the issue, people vote their pocketbooks, and it's the latter that most noticeably swung PA, OH, WI, and MI (and I'm sure its also what swung IA, FL, and NC, they're just not as stereo-typically blue collar). The economics and politics of the situation are deeply intertwined.

The Zeitgeist has been clear to those who have been on both sides of the fence for a while. Those polls that showed Hillary 1% up against Trump (and Bernie up by significantly more) months ago nailed it. Trump is horribly unpopular. If you just blame -isms for why he won instead of examining where we went wrong, he will win again in 2020.

All good points. Another problem for the working class that got much worse since the last election is healthcare. A lot of the people you describe are now forced to buy staggeringly expensive healthcare on an individual market that has been totally upended by Obamacare. No more union/big company jobs with accompanying benefits means no way to shield yourself and your family from the effects of an individual market that has gone totally against the direction the democratic so-called policy experts predicted. Compound that with even fewer options in rural areas and there is no way out from under what should have been Obama's seminal policy achievement. We just didn't see the effects until now because the ACA had barely been implemented in 2012.

Also, if you think all this is a purely rural issue in some not-so-far-off rust belt state, think again: http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/n ... -jobs.html

[acs]

This is stolen from a friend who is far more eloquent than I (on a different forum):

Are you serious? Democrats ignored/excluded/offended blue collar middle class whites more than Republicans? Free trade isn't an idea espoused by Democrats. Union busting isn't a Democratic value. Cutting taxes for the rich while pretending it will create jobs and benefit working class people isn't a Democratic principle. Fighting investment in job-creating and desperately needed infrastructure projects was not a part of the Democrat approach. Permitting companies to take jobs overseas while protecting that income from taxation is something all politicians permitted.

If you're talking about pretend issues like reverse racism and forced gay cake-selling, then yeah. They were completely ignored and excluded. But if all it takes is the siren song of a race-baiting bullshit artist who has spent his life shitting on the very people who voted for him in overwhelming numbers, the conclusion you drew above just doesn't make any sense.

Perception is reality though, and what they have seen lately is a democrat president pushing hard for a free trade deal with Asia, negotiating one with Europe, and supporting a Democrat candidate who is married to the man who signed NAFTA. The Dems left the barn door wide open for Trump to run to their left on this one and bring a whole new electorate into their fold. Lesson #1 is don't make that mistake again.

[Tiller]

Good point, I missed that^. Obamacare has been a disastrous baby-step towards a multi-payer system, when we should be creating a single-payer system anyways. The drastic MNsure rate increases are probably part of the reason why we lost the legislature here in MN, and why we almost turned red. Rural areas have been especially hard hit, and I remember seeing that rural turnout was through the roof yesterday.

Edit: and no-one believes Hillary is against Free Trade. She's a bald-faced liar on that issue. She lied about it in 2008, then flipped to continue supporting it as SOS, and had to lightly "pretend" (flop) to be against it because of Bernie, then Trump (meanwhile insiders have consistently said that she will approve TPP/TTIP when elected).

[amiller92]

All good points. Another problem for the working class that got much worse since the last election is healthcare. A lot of the people you describe are now forced to buy staggeringly expensive healthcare on an individual market that has been totally upended by Obamacare. No more union/big company jobs with accompanying benefits means no way to shield yourself and your family from the effects of an individual market that has gone totally against the direction the democratic so-called policy experts predicted. Compound that with even fewer options in rural areas and there is no way out from under what should have been Obama's seminal policy achievement. We just didn't see the effects until now because the ACA had barely been implemented in 2012.

You guys are doing a bang up job of repeating things that are not true, but are widely believed, that are certainly relevant to what happened last night.

[mister.shoes]

This is stolen from a friend who is far more eloquent than I (on a different forum):

Are you serious? Democrats ignored/excluded/offended blue collar middle class whites more than Republicans? Free trade isn't an idea espoused by Democrats. Union busting isn't a Democratic value. Cutting taxes for the rich while pretending it will create jobs and benefit working class people isn't a Democratic principle. Fighting investment in job-creating and desperately needed infrastructure projects was not a part of the Democrat approach. Permitting companies to take jobs overseas while protecting that income from taxation is something all politicians permitted.

If you're talking about pretend issues like reverse racism and forced gay cake-selling, then yeah. They were completely ignored and excluded. But if all it takes is the siren song of a race-baiting bullshit artist who has spent his life shitting on the very people who voted for him in overwhelming numbers, the conclusion you drew above just doesn't make any sense.

This is where I keep landing: I can't see any world in which the GOP cares about the poors—not more than the DEMs, not more than the GOP currently does—at all. Within Trump's first 100 days, millions of people are going to lose any semblance of health insurance, Soc Security and Medicare will be on their way to getting privatized, and the richest people in the country are going to get massive tax cuts on capital gains and inherited wealth and probably even plain-ol' income. None of those things are going to help anyone but the richest of the rich who already have company-provided health insurance, big fat retirement plans, and more disposable income than they know what to do with. We're back to trickle-down economics, but without the trickle. Or the down.

[amiller92]

Edit: and no-one believes Hillary is against Free Trade. She's a bald-faced liar on that issue. She lied about it in 2008, then flipped to continue supporting it as SOS, and had to lightly "pretend" (flop) to be against it because of Bernie, then Trump (meanwhile insiders have consistently said that she will approve TPP/TTIP when elected).

She's not against free trade because literally no one who has spent any time looking at the issue or considered the data is against free trade. The voters you're talking about are wrong.

These are the same people who think that building housing causes housing prices to rise, or that reducing a street from four lanes to three inherently causes congestion.

[kirby96]

This is stolen from a friend who is far more eloquent than I (on a different forum):

Are you serious? Democrats ignored/excluded/offended blue collar middle class whites more than Republicans? Free trade isn't an idea espoused by Democrats. Union busting isn't a Democratic value. Cutting taxes for the rich while pretending it will create jobs and benefit working class people isn't a Democratic principle. Fighting investment in job-creating and desperately needed infrastructure projects was not a part of the Democrat approach. Permitting companies to take jobs overseas while protecting that income from taxation is something all politicians permitted.

If you're talking about pretend issues like reverse racism and forced gay cake-selling, then yeah. They were completely ignored and excluded. But if all it takes is the siren song of a race-baiting bullshit artist who has spent his life shitting on the very people who voted for him in overwhelming numbers, the conclusion you drew above just doesn't make any sense.

Democrats have absolutely ignored blue collar middle class, but your quote is right to a point: Republicans haven't done squat for them either. It's why Trump won the primary.

Their economic prospects have dimmed, the left ignores them as a declining demographic and establishment Republicans hoodwink them with guns and gay marriage.

The notion that the slice of the 'pie' available to blue collar whites has shrunk is very real. And Trump comes along and basically says that not only is your slice smaller, but Democrats now want you to share it with historically disenfranchised groups and immigrants. It's a compelling message if you actually put yourself in their shoes for a moment.

Now obviously, Trump doesn't have any susbstance and ain't gonna do anything for them either. But it got him elected.

The truly bad news is that I don't see ANY obvious solution to get the slice available to these folks (or any other struggling demographic) to start growing again (technology, globalism, lots of factors working against it). I'm very discouraged. I think we are on the leading edge of a period of great disruption.

[amiller92]

Democrats have absolutely ignored blue collar middle class, but your quote is right to a point: Republicans haven't done squat for them either.

You mean aside from bailing out the auto industry? And subsidizing health insurance? Expanding Medicaid?

But yeah, for the most part, neither party has done anything for anybody for the last six years and the GOP chose obstruction, which right now looks like it worked like a charm. Served with a side of voter suppression (300,000 people in Wisconsin lacked the required voter ID. Trump won by 27,000)

The notion that the slice of the 'pie' available to blue collar whites has shrunk is very real. And Trump comes along and basically says that not only is your slice smaller, but Democrats now want you to share it with historically disenfranchised groups and immigrants. It's a compelling message if you actually put yourself in their shoes for a moment.

It is. It's the oldest trick in American politics. And it's racist as all get out.

The truly bad news is that I don't see ANY obvious solution to get the slice available to these folks (or any other struggling demographic) to start growing again (technology, globalism, lots of factors working against it). I'm very discouraged. I think we are on the leading edge of a period of great disruption.

We know how to address these issues. More progressive taxation to fund income support, health care and education. Job training, skills development and relocations support. Child care. Investment in research and technology to create new industries. You know, things Dems would do if there weren't Rs in the way.

And, of course, those things don't get Joe from Fergus Falls a new job, so they're only solutions over time.

[Tiller]

Edit: and no-one believes Hillary is against Free Trade. She's a bald-faced liar on that issue. She lied about it in 2008, then flipped to continue supporting it as SOS, and had to lightly "pretend" (flop) to be against it because of Bernie, then Trump (meanwhile insiders have consistently said that she will approve TPP/TTIP when elected).

She's not against free trade because literally no one who has spent any time looking at the issue or considered the data is against free trade. The voters you're talking about are wrong.

These are the same people who think that building housing causes housing prices to rise, or that reducing a street from four lanes to three inherently causes congestion.

I don't disagree, I'm in favor of free trade (with certain caveats), but restricting it (along with immigration) is a traditionally left-wing issue that, directly in contradiction to what you posted, establishment democrats are in favor of. The old industrial classes are the only ones who have lost out in globalization, btw. The domestic poor make gains due to lower consumer prices, the foreign poor make gains due to more jobs, and the upper classes siphon off much of the difference, leaving the working class high-and-dry.

I agree with NAFTA as an example, but US agriculture put millions of Mexican Farmers out of work, while Mexican manufacturing put millions of American factory workers out of work. It was a net positive for the economy, and increased productivity (competitive advantage and all), but the gains were not shared. It's been used as a tool to increase income and wealth inequality.

Additionally, the concept of "competitive advantage", in practice, includes how malleable foreign governments are to manipulation and corruption. One of the most consequential harms caused by this is massive amounts of pollution due to lax environmental laws. I don't know how the increases in economic efficiency measure up against the environmental damage, but it is certainly a large dampener in the true value of free trade.

This ignores the meat of the argument though, in that perception is reality. Hillary campaigned on social issues, on Trump being X, Y, and Z. We need economic progressivism to win the white working class. If we keep losing ground with them, Minnesota will become Kansas, and it will be several decades before the democratic party is no longer a minority party throughout the majority of the nation, if we even remain a democracy.

[kirby96]

You mean aside from bailing out the auto industry? And subsidizing health insurance? Expanding Medicaid?

You will get no argument from me that the Democratic platform and their policies are actually better for them.

But again, being a non college educated person has gotten tougher. Those nice things above notwithstanding, they just ain't richer (relatively). And as the Republicans built their exclusionary platform over the past 20 years, the Dems have not countered it, and to the contrary have actually used it as a rallying point for the demographics they appeal to. They've effectively portrayed them as a group that must be stopped, not included.

[amiller92]

The old industrial classes are the only ones who have lost out in globalization, btw. The domestic poor make gains due to lower consumer prices, the foreign poor make gains due to more jobs, and the upper classes siphon off much of the difference, leaving the working class high-and-dry.

Except that this is empirically not true. The closest to evidence you will get for this story is that the opening of China caused the loss of something like 700,000 in American manufacturing over a decade. When it's growing, our economy adds something like 200,000 jobs per month.

And that's the only case that for which there's evidence of harm from trade born by a relatively small number of American workers. People have looked harm from NAFTA and other trade deals. They haven't found it.

Automation is a much bigger factor in lost domestic manufacturing jobs.

But the perception is as you've described and we've done nothing to offset whatever pain trade causes because it wasn't on Bill Clinton's to do list and ever since we've had enough republicans around to keep anything constructive from happening.

We need economic progressivism to win the white working class.

Honestly, I don't think it works in the face of racism and xenophobia. The Trump voter will perceive it as taking from them to give to the other. Just as they are now.

[Archiapolis]

This is stolen from a friend who is far more eloquent than I (on a different forum):

Are you serious? Democrats ignored/excluded/offended blue collar middle class whites more than Republicans? Free trade isn't an idea espoused by Democrats. Union busting isn't a Democratic value. Cutting taxes for the rich while pretending it will create jobs and benefit working class people isn't a Democratic principle. Fighting investment in job-creating and desperately needed infrastructure projects was not a part of the Democrat approach. Permitting companies to take jobs overseas while protecting that income from taxation is something all politicians permitted.

If you're talking about pretend issues like reverse racism and forced gay cake-selling, then yeah. They were completely ignored and excluded. But if all it takes is the siren song of a race-baiting bullshit artist who has spent his life shitting on the very people who voted for him in overwhelming numbers, the conclusion you drew above just doesn't make any sense.

True, but the point is that DEMOCRATS ARE NOT COMMUNICATING THEIR EFFORTS ON THE ABOVE EFFECTIVELY and therefore not capturing the hearts/minds/spirits of disaffected and angry (white) people. Sorry I keep shouting. Obviously I'm stressed out. Apologies.

[David Greene]

The good news is that the VAST majority of the things we discuss on this site aren't really impacted by national politics, it's the state legislature I'm watching.

Federal transit funding is going to be slashed, if not ended entirely. Highways will get huge dollars and CAFE standards will be a thing of the past. The Republicans can and will do serious damage that will last for generations if we don't fight to stop it.

[David Greene]

The silver linings is there is a very real possibility that they might overplay their hand and push some unpopular social agenda, allowing democrats to retake at least one branch in the more crucial 2020 election. Remember how this played out in our state legislature 2012? Give them enough rope to hang themselves while bringing the party back together in a united front.

I sure hope it's before 2020! 2018 the Dems have a tall order to not only hold their Senate seats but actually make inroads. Could happen if the Republicans misplay their hand.

The only silver lining I see is that there's going to be a huge Democratic effort for 2020 and that's a redistricting year. The question is whether the party can come together and formulate a winning message and slate of candidates that year.

I think the Boomers are done being in charge.

[David Greene]

I genuinely don't know the answer to this question (and I'm not sure I want to): If republicans have control of all 3 branches, could this hurt federal funding for some of our transit projects? Especially BLRT?

BLRT is definitely in jeopardy. SWLRT too unless the Full Funding Grant Agreement is in place by the end of the year. I'm not sure what the timeline is on that or whether it's even possible at this point.

W did a ton of damage to transit just by how he implemented SAFETEA-LU. Trump + a Republican Congress is going to be a lot worse.

Unless we fight. We have no choice.

[David Greene]

Makes me wonder how Bernie/Trump would have stacked up.

I don't think it would have been any different. This was a Republican wave. This was reaction to BLM, Marriage Equality, Immigration and yes, trade. With a bunch of racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc. mixed in. Pretty much the only thing Bernie agreed on was trade. Note that Trump never talked about dismantling the financial system and his tax proposal very clearly benefits the rich.

[EOst]

I sure hope it's before 2020!

If (indeed) free elections still happen at all. Whatever horrors Trump may unleash will be magnified a thousandfold if he is defeated while in power. His demonstrated lack of commitment to democratic governance does not give me confidence.