quote:

I am writing this article late on election night in my office at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, about a mile from the home in which Tom Frank grew up just over the state line in Kansas. Beginning with his famous book, What’s the Matter with Kansas, first published in 2004, Tom Frank has been warning the Democratic Party of the increasing cost it was paying by abandoning and even attacking the working class, particularly the white working class. Some political scientists tried to savage his work, pointing to Bill Clinton’s electoral success and arguing that the disaffected members of the working class were also less likely to vote. Frank returned to the theme just in time for this election with a new book – Listen, Liberal – that documents in damning, lively narrative the New Democrats’ war on the New Deal, their disdain for organized labor, and their antipathy for what they viewed as retrograde white working class attitudes.

Frank kept showing the enormous price the working class were paying as a result of the economic policies of the Republicans and the New Democrats, and the indifference to their plight by the leaders of the New Democrats. Senator Bernie Sanders consciously took up the cause of reducing surging inequality and became a hero to a broad coalition of voters, many of them fiercely opposed to the New Democrats’ embrace of Wall Street cash, policies, and arrogance. Sanders set records for small donor fundraising and generated enormous enthusiasm. Sanders knew he would face the opposition of the New Democrats, but he also found that progressive congressional Democrats would rarely support him publicly in the contest for the Party’s nomination and even union leaders sided overwhelmingly with Secretary Hillary Clinton, the New Democrats’ strongly preferred candidate.

Hillary did not simply fail to reach out to the working class voters that the New Democrats had turned their backs on for decades, she infamously attacked them as “deplorables.” This was exactly the group of potential voters that was enraged because it believed, correctly as Tom Frank keeps showing us, that the New Democrats looked down on them and adopted policies that rigged the system against the working class. Hillary’s insult confirmed their most powerful bases for their rage against her. Her insult was an early Christmas present to Trump. Her attempt to walk the insult back was doomed.

Hillary Clinton handled things so miserably that she allowed a plutocrat whose career is based on rigging the system against the working class to become the hero of the working class. That is world-class incompetence. Had she followed Tom Frank’s advice she would today be the President-elect. The real cost, however, of her failure will be enormous damage to our democracy, the safety of the world, and the damage that President Trump will do to the working class as he systematically betrays their interests.

The first test of whether the Wall Street-wing of the Democratic Party has learned any of the lessons Tom Frank tried to teach them is whether President Obama will continue with his threat to try to have the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) approved by the lame duck session of Congress. Obama, who was elected on the promise that he would stop TPP, should listen to Senators Sanders and Warren and honor his promise to the voters to stop TPP. He must begin the process of the Democrats winning back the support of the working class.

The leaders of the democratic-wing of the Democratic Party need to move forward assertively to retake control of their Party. The current head of the DNC has been exposed as part of the effort to prevent Senator Sanders from winning the nomination. She should resign tomorrow. The Clintons should cease acting as Party leaders.

A period of enormous corruption and elite fraud is coming soon as the Trump administration brings its signature characteristic – crony capitalism – to bear to control all three branches of government. Trump promises to deregulate Wall Street, appoint top supervisors chosen for their unwillingness to supervise, and appoint judges who will allow CEOs to loot with impunity. Trump promises to outdo even the savage anti-media and anti-whistleblower policies of the Obama administration. The House and Senate committee chairs will intensify their blatantly partisan use of investigations while refusing to conduct real oversight hearings revealing the elite fraud and corruption.

The progressive Senate Democrats will have to be innovative and stalwart in these circumstances to find ways to blow the whistle repeatedly on the mounting corruption. Their challenge will be to lead despite having no real institutional power. Democrats should start by doing what they should have done in 2004 – take Tom Frank’s warnings deadly seriously.

punk rebel ecks posted:

It's something a lot of the anti-politically correct crowd is pushing. However, it's bullshit as Trump had less votes than Romeny. Dems lost because of a huge turnout fall for their party.

theflyingorc posted:

You have the least appropriate username

MiddleOne posted:

I never actually understood this sentiment during the primary's. Like what honestly did he do to deserve the amount of distrust he got?

LinYutang posted:

It wasn't turnout.

Huzanko posted:

People keep saying this without realizing that the point that is being made is that the DNC needs to keep supporting minority voters AND focus on economic populism. It's additive.

If you don't realize that the DNC focuses on social justice and minority voters and LGBT issues, frequently to the exclusion of all else, because it lets them be "leftist" without pissing off Wall St. I don't know what to tell you. The modern DNC are just Rockefeller Republicans.

Pollyanna posted:

I want to believe this. I know it's true, and I'll keep fighting for it. I want to have my cake and eat it too, and I don't want to have to choose. gently caress that bullshit, it's a false division and I won't stand for it.

Star Man posted:

No, I think that's the answer I was looking for. And I can understand that frustration. I'd rather someone come around on something like gay rights if they thought it would make them more popular than not at all.

Like, F.W. de Klerk surprised a lot of people when he became president of South Africa and with the reputation he had as a staunch conservative, came out against apartheid and made it his top priority to end it. I think he did it because of the pressure the rest of the world was putting on South Africa, not out of the kindness of his heart.

LinYutang posted:

It wasn't turnout.

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/796789450537861120
https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/796844140784971776
https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/796846348045848576

punk rebel ecks posted:

Nate Silver seems to be drinking the Kool Aid again. Sure maybe some of the smaller rural areas flipped, but not the states as a whole. Though I will admit that things are happening in Pennsylvania and Florida.

punk rebel ecks posted:

If turnout was at or near Obama 2012 levels, then these states would have carried over and Clinton would be president.

LinYutang posted:

I'm gonna keep quoting Nate Cohn, because he's correct on this. Trump won because a central part of the Obama coalition flipped to him. Dems need to deal with that or they'll keep losing.

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/796848403003150336

Syfe posted:

So, I've heard a lot of people blame Hillary for not exciting voters and I feel that there are things on this that have not been addressed in this thread or any other election thread that I have read on this forum.

Hillary had to do the most careful balancing act any person who has ran for president ever has, it's hard to be a woman. You're judged on your appearance, you're judged on the pitch of your voice, you're judged on how you stand, if you smile, if you smile too much or too little, if you scream or even raise your voice, if you don't wear make up, if you wear too much make up, if you interrupt, if you do really anything that somebody might tie back to the horrible stereotype of "women are shrill, naggy, irrational beings".

This is a rhetoric which I have been subject to my entire life, because even women are socialized to stigmatize other women this way. It's the most ridiculous balancing act to have to ask somebody to make, and all I hear from Democrats is "Well I wasn't impressed enough." It's easier to get people to vote in racial blocs than it is across the gender line. There are so many men who will never vote for a woman because of the things they have been taught women are, because if they say and predicate those things then it makes them and all other men more powerful. That is the promise.

So there are plenty of men, even across racial lines that didn't want to vote for Hillary. They weren't worried about what the threat of Trump meant to them, they're religious convictions and socially informed positions have told them that a woman should not hold that office, it is unholy to do so, improper and devalues men if we let it happen.

You also have women saying this because they are part of those socialized circles to say "that is not the place of a woman".

e: (Nevermind that Trump himself embodies the inverse of this, the chauvinistic pig who gets away with openly groping and grabbing women, or at least saying he does and the power of being able to do that speaks to some men.)

Kilroy posted:

Those are Good Nate tweets not Woke Nate.

Kilroy posted:

Whoops I forget it's time to stop making fun of Nate Silver since he was the least wrong of anyone. Still, that wasn't him.

LinYutang posted:

I'm gonna keep quoting Nate Cohn, because he's correct on this. Trump won because a central part of the Obama coalition flipped to him. Dems need to deal with that or they'll keep losing.

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/796848403003150336

Typical Pubbie posted:

Wait, which Nate is Shook Nate? Is Good Nate Shook Nate or is Shook Nate Woke Nate?

Mr. Belding posted:

In what way was he wrong? He said Trump had a 30% of winning. 30% odds happen every day.

Pollyanna posted:

It's a reminder to myself to remain optimistic and to believe the morning sun. Right now, it's not really working.

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

https://twitter.com/davidshor/status/797900923020382210

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

seems like between education and income, income would probably be more closely associated with class

Kilroy posted:

I meant Shook Nate. There is no Woke Nate afaik.

If you say something is not likely to happen, but not out of the question either, and then it happens, that may not be 'wrong' but it is certainly not 'right'. Anyway we agree I think - I said 'less wrong' for this reason.

Mr. Belding posted:

It's impossible to gauge whether he is right, but he is almost certainly far more right than every other poll aggregator. Like he said, this didn't feel like an election where one candidate had 99% odds. Likely directed at Wang the wrong.

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

https://twitter.com/davidshor/status/797900923020382210

Typical Pubbie posted:

How do you completely untangle culture from economics? Or education from class?

There's a lot of cultural capital being expended right now to assure people that the white working class are all a bunch of irredeemable racists.

PT6A posted:

Who's said anything about irredeemable?

Typical Pubbie posted:

The people who treat any direct outreach to rural American whites as "coddling racists."

PT6A posted:

No, any outreach where their racism is simply allowed to persist is what's being called "coddling racists," because it is.

"We'll help you, but you have to stop blaming the Mexicans and the Jews for all your problems, and for gently caress sake stop whinging about affirmative action and political correctness" seems quite reasonable.

PT6A posted:

No, any outreach where their racism is simply allowed to persist is what's being called "coddling racists," because it is.

"We'll help you, but you have to stop blaming the Mexicans and the Jews for all your problems, and for gently caress sake stop whinging about affirmative action and political correctness" seems quite reasonable.

Typical Pubbie posted:

The people who treat any direct outreach to rural American whites as "coddling racists."

Dr. Angela Ziegler posted:

I think the time for small towns in the middle of nowhere has come to an end. We need to talk about whether or not these towns should exist. If there's a way to buy out everyone in a town and just bulldoze/let nature take its course and start clumping people into ever-larger towns until there are swaths of gorgeous countryside and parks between commercial/industrial hubs of cities, that would solve many problems, such as people in need of urgent care being far from hospitals.

You could even do it voluntarily, by (at the state or county level) no longer providing services/road repair/water&sewage.

People can like their ancestral homes and their birthplace, but that doesn't give those places a right to exist.

Grognan posted:

Acknowledging them as basically people with the same rights has been problematic in some of the threads in the forums. Check out that rural poverty thread for some hot takes.

PT6A posted:

"We'll help you, but you have to stop blaming the Mexicans and the Jews for all your problems, and for gently caress sake stop whinging about affirmative action and political correctness" seems quite reasonable.

punk rebel ecks posted: