|
Kthulhu5000 posted:And while racist motivations and the like no doubt played a role, I also think they're too easy to pin the motivations of the Trump voter base on. Don't get me wrong; I don't think they have good motivations or were operating from a sincere if misguided desire to actually improve the country for everyone. But while it's easy to see their surface power gestures of complaining about blacks on welfare and Latino border hoppers and liberal SJW faggots and the like as their sole motivating principle, I think many are also in a state of angst and a tempestuous internal tizzy over, well, the world in general. This is a hard pill for me to swallow, I see race as a huge motivating factor. Yes, there are a lot of white voters with real problems that aren't being addressed by either party. Hillary knew that and developed a platform that actual addressed those issues. I think her "Depolorables" speech is actually pretty prescient: [quote="Hillary"] You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people -- now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America." "But the other basket -- and I know this because I see friends from all over America here -- I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas -- as well as, you know, New York and California -- but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well." [\quote] Hillary was not unaware there was a large disaffected white voting bloc. She based her campaign on coming together and helping everyone, including disaffected whites. She offered real substantive policy to address these problems. The issue is her policy was based in a reality where coal and manufacturing jobs are never coming back. Trump successfully sold an alternative reality where we can get those jobs back if only we deport illegal immigrants, repeal NAFTA, etc... It's a reality in which facts simply do not matter. This isn't a failure of just the DNC. The RNC and mainstream media had no idea how to handle him either. The issue is white people are more willing to accept that it's brown people's faults than the fact that their lives might have to permanently change. We can quibble about whether the biggest motivation is economics or race, at the end of the day the solution people embraced is hurting minorities.
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:47 |
|
|
Niwrad posted:Yeah, I think if anything this election proved the news media doesn't have much power when it comes to elections.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
skeet decorator posted:This is a hard pill for me to swallow, I see race as a huge motivating factor. Yes, there are a lot of white voters with real problems that aren't being addressed by either party. Hillary knew that and developed a platform that actual addressed those issues. I think her "Depolorables" speech is actually pretty prescient: I am shocked, shocked that no one paid attention to more than the first sentence of that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
She ran a poo poo campaign and just assumed the working class vote would be hers. I mean she lost the loving union vote in Ohio. A vote that Obama took 63% of in 2012. When Democrats can't even win the union vote in an election, they're in trouble. Maybe instead of running ads with Katy Perry music playing as people cheer you on at a rally isn't the best advertisement in a state like Ohio. Just take a look at the ads Obama ran in Ohio and you can see why he won it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
The thing about working class white people handing the election to Trump on the basis that they want to fight back against the tax dodging billionaires that are taking away their jobs to foreign countries is that they are protest voting through atax dodging billionaire that outsources his jobs to foreign countries. He is the literal embodyment of all they are raillying against and it's perplexing they can't see the contradiction in what they are doing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
Max Awfuls posted:The thing about working class white people handing the election to Trump on the basis that they want to fight back against the tax dodging billionaires that are taking away their jobs to foreign countries is that they are protest voting through atax dodging billionaire that outsources his jobs to foreign countries. He is the literal embodyment of all they are raillying against and it's perplexing they can't see the contradiction in what they are doing. Well he said he'll bring the jobs back.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
What happened is the better candidate won and now leftists are whining about it. Congrats, fellow centipedes <3 M.A.G.A.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:What happened? Oh, I'm edging all right
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
As a foreigner being in America for a while, I too try to make sense of it. First I thought the turn out was great, because all the early reports about long lines etc. So I was shocked to see Trump win. And I felt really sorry for all the Democrats and Latinos that where supposed to be voting in large groups. But now it seems that trump mainly won due to poor voter turn out by the Democrats. What is the opinion about democrats that didnt vote but are angry now? I have been told that I should always vote, and there are plenty of polling stations at home. As a result, I sort of have the 'if you didnt try to vote, dont complain' attitude. But how fair is this in the US? I know voter suppresion is a real thing. And I know the dnc produced a terrible candidate, but shouldnt an election with so much on the line (scotus and senate) have generated a good turn out? I mean, I understand why dems wouldnt vote for Hillary, but couldnt they leave that box open and still vote for senate? This morning I woke up feeling really sad for minorities, women and lbgtq people because so much people showed up to vote for Trump. But now it seems that they where just left alone by people not voting. I feel more and more that this result is more due to dems (both voters not showing up and terrible policy/politics by the dnc self) than actually a surge of republicans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
Thatim posted:As a foreigner being in America for a while, I too try to make sense of it. Pretty much the dnc is slightly less incompetent then the Labour Party pre 2015.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
Thatim posted:As a foreigner being in America for a while, I too try to make sense of it. It is absolutely the fault of the Democrats for sucking, and us minorities, women and LGBT people are feeling pretty loving sad for ourselves right now too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
Posted Said posted:What happened is the better candidate won and now leftists are whining about it. But if it is the better candidate, why is the turn out so bad? Seems like republicans wherent too glad with him either. But congratulations I guess. I sure hope he will make America great for all the people like he said. I do wonder, do you think a more extremen candidate will arise for the gop next time if Trump isnt able to deliver on his promises?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:What happened? Actually considering the rise of right wing politics all over the world, we might be more popular than ever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:It is absolutely the fault of the Democrats for sucking, and us minorities, women and LGBT people are feeling pretty loving sad for ourselves right now too. I feel for you, and pretty much everyone I know. Both here and back in Europe. You are not alone and you will get through this!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
I blame emails
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
The Democrats ran a cynical, establishment politician against an electorate that wanted to take chainsaw to the system
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:This is horrifying to think about. what's even more horrifying is that the GOP knows they've got these voters despite doing nothing for them
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:I'm going to copy and paste this form the main election thread: Can be distilled into: "Democrats [are] motivated by hope, Fear is all about resisting change and that's primarily a conservative trait, in fact it's the core of their identity, Lefties simply aren't motivated by it." Hillary didn't inspire hope. Dems weren't inspired to vote. Scary Donald didn't spook them to the ballot box. Republicans did the exact same poo poo they do every election, show up, hold their nose and vote for whatever piece of poo poo they've nominated this time. And the right wing has been pumping Fear Of Hillary Clinton into the media waters ever since there was even a sniff of her running for Senate, because they knew the day would come when that was going to turn into a presidential run.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
I think there's more to be made about the face of NAFTA (and more broadly a huge proponent of free trade) being done in by the rust belt. Whether or not it was Clinton's fault entirely, it's an easy connection to make. Trump just sold them on a more regressive version of the "hope and change" platform Obama used to reach disaffected millennials after Bush. There is also perhaps something to be said about dynastic politics in the US, given that Trump did just end the Bush and Clinton legacies single-handedly, although I think that's just a subset of the outsider factor. Also the fact that Trump won with fewer votes than Romney seals Hillary's legacy as an all-time terrible candidate. Despite the gloating from the right, this wasn't an uprising or new wave of political ideas. It might just be as simple as the republicans turned their base out, picked up some crossover votes in swing states where a "change" message resonated a little more, and the democrat base didn't turn out for a lackluster candidate. The consequences of this election could be game-changing, and Trump is a novel candidate to be sure, but the voting patterns look pretty vanilla.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 07:16
|
|
|
skeet decorator posted:This is a hard pill for me to swallow, I see race as a huge motivating factor. Yes, there are a lot of white voters with real problems that aren't being addressed by either party. Hillary knew that and developed a platform that actual addressed those issues. I think her "Depolorables" speech is actually pretty prescient: Fair enough. The whole issue I have with "WELL IT'S RACE!" is not that I don't believe it wasn't a factor in some respect and a major component of Trump's rhetoric. It definitely was, and was definitely goaded forward by elements of his support base. But it just seems too easy, too blase, too back-patting and lacking in nuance as a prime motivation. It's taking one facet of something that is complicated and magnifying it to a single feel-good reason to fingerpoint at and avoid any kind of serious reflection about the election and failure of Clinton to win. It just strikes me as "TRUMP VOTERS, LOTS OF RACISM, IT'S THEIR PAVLOVIAN ORC-LIKE NATURE!". Which doesn't help us to address the "Why?" of it, or deal with the fact that we might live in a nation of 55 million orcs or whatever if that actually is the case. Clinton, as in your quote, acknowledged there was a disaffected white voting bloc. But the big question is one of credibility; how responsive or believable have American politicians been? How gridlocked, dead-ended, and non-delivering do we feel our political system has become? How much confidence do we have in our politicians to effect the change they promise? As others have mentioned on the forum, Clinton could talk a good game, but it didn't energize the non-voters. The people who are apathetic, or complacent, or figure "It's all the same hosed-up outcome anyway, regardless of who wins, since it's actually the Republicratic party!". Those are who Clinton needed to rouse and get voting (electoral college bullshit aside, though that just makes it more crucial), and she didn't. Because the establishment political system has basically devolved into a complacent night-watchman kind of setup, with no energy or inspiration as to where the country should go or what it should mean and stand for. Just react to emergencies, act according to routine otherwise, here's a bit of a flareup of controversy, now fizzle back to a boring routine. There are politicians who legislate and bureaucrats who administrate. When former feel like they are one and the same as the latter, it shouldn't be surprising that they get taken for granted, are ignored, or inspire antipathy. The Democrats seemed pretty content with that; the Republicans remained viciously hungry to be on top, though. That there was a Republican voter bias against her for being a Clinton, and a Democrat, is undeniable. But what she's paying for, as I see it, is the lack of concrete Democratic action from previous years. Hindsight is 20/20, of course, but if the Democrats had spent more time over the last eight or sixteen years pushing strong economic and social policies to help the majority of Americans, she may have had a list of strong party accomplishments to point to that she would uphold, protect, expand, whatever. Maybe it would have been a losing proposition but, welp, look at today! As it is, she just came across as a boring centrist candidate who the right-wing would never love anyway, and who would be taken for granted by a large cynical and apathetic voter base that felt they had no real impact or skin in the game to concern themselves with. Trump, meanwhile, short-circuited the whole party credibility issue by making the campaign about himself and undermining the rest of the Republican apparatus as uninspiring do-nothing and know-nothing idiots, asleep at the wheel except for when they wanted to play grabass with lobbyists and campaign contributors or shallowly stump for votes. Voting for Trump was voting for Trump, not the Republican platform per se, and probably because he was exciting for seeming so shamelessly flagrant in breaking all the couching and hedging and overt taboos. And yes, it's ugly and will hurt minorities. But the Trump voter tent filled itself with the impetus and energy that this was a do-or-die situation for the nation and right-wing interests, be they genuine problems or racial bigotry or whatever. Trump's shamelessness meant he had no problem with every right-wing Tom, Dick, and Harry riding on his bus, regardless of what he himself does or does not really believe. Clinton failed to generate that same energy, and seemed content to coast on her name, her potential historical status, the fact that she was a safe n' sane candidate and (like I think so many of us might have naively thought) that Trump was the pathetic death rattle of a Republican party in shrinking disarray and at odds with itself. In summation, I don't think it's accurate to say "Clinton had good plans, and the disaffected white vote knew of them and chose racism anyway!". Rather, whatever good plans Clinton had were either not communicated or were ignored by the apathetic non-voters in this country.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 07:31
|
|
|
I've given it some thought, and I think that someone got through to Trump is that all he had to do was to shut up for awhile and people would forget how terrible he is. Not at his rallies, though, which don't count or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
Is it still the 'lazy voters' fault when the battleground states and counties, that went for Obama before actually went to Trump? eg. the low-income rural white votes in PA that went for Obama in 2008 actually went for Trump in 2016. Basically DNC wanted to keep the status quo and got HRC instead of what people actually wanted which was Bernie. This was way back in Feb https://theintercept.com/2016/02/24/with-trump-looming-should-dems-take-a-huge-electability-gamble-by-nominating-hillary-clinton/ quote:Then there’s the particular climate of the electorate. While it’s undoubtedly true that racism and ethno-nationalism are significant factors in Trump’s appeal, also quite significant is a pervasive, long-standing contempt for the political establishment, combined with enduring rage at Wall Street and corporate America, which — along with the bipartisan agenda of globalization and free trade — have spawned intense economic suffering and deprivation among a huge number of Americans. This article by the conservative writer Michael Brendan Dougherty is the best I’ve read explaining the sustained success of Trump’s candidacy, and it very convincingly documents those factors: “There are a number of Americans who are losers from a process of economic globalization that enriches a transnational global elite.”
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 07:45
|
|
|
Interesting viewpoint.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 07:50
|
|
|
My two cents: Setting aside HIllary's weaknesses as a candidate... It's more difficult to feel empathy for others and engage in meaningful political discourse when you're struggling to get by or seeing your relative standard of living drop year after year. The Democrats chose to go after Trump for all the ridiculous poo poo he said and did, rather than: 1. Admit that people were being left behind by the economy and getting poo poo pay service jobs as replacement for good paying jobs. 2. Admit that Democratic (and Republican) free trade and tax policy was a big part of this. Apologize. 3. Offer concrete policies to address this issue (infrastructure public works, real job retraining, etc.) 4. Explain why your solution is more effective than trickle down economics. Sure, Trump had no actual proposals of his own, but at least he said to this group: 1. You got screwed. 2. Your anger is my anger. 3. Here's whose fault it is (immigrants and corrupt liberals) 4. Don't worry I'll make it all better. Add to that, many were called racists for supporting Trump and you can see why they lied in polls and then broke for him come election time. Hell, a lot of Trump supporters were racists, but: a) There is a sliding scale of racism (Let's say it stretches from Klansman to a guy who gets nervous around groups of loud minority teens but not groups of loud white teens) b) You can't call someone a racist or an idiot or talk down to someone and expect their vote. But if you improve their lives and make them less cared maybe they'll be inclined to open their minds to other social issues edit: Don't get me wrong. I thought Hillary was going to win, because surely the electorate would see the difference in intelligence/temperment/experience/rear end in a top hat-bullyishness....but welp. BigRoman fucked around with this message at 08:14 on Nov 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 08:09
|
|
|
I think the Democrats lost because the Democratic party is inherently flawed. They rely on leftist rhetoric to rally their base but have no intention on fighting to implement leftist policy. This is because the Democratic party is not truly leftist. They want to be centrists. But centrist doesn't actually mean "center of political thought" anymore. It means status quo; the economic center which means "how things are." This was perfectly embodied by Hillary Clinton this year. The Democrats saw their base motivated like never before under Bernie Sanders and instead of recognizing the desires of their electorate they sought to squash the dissent amongst their ranks and tried to convince everyone that economic change was impossible. They should have immediately adopted and implemented Bernie and his message, and even if he lost the primary, he should have been the VP. But this was clearly never the intention of the party. In fact, they openly rejected that idea and it doomed them. The Republicans meanwhile all got crushed by their populist economic reformer. Upon seeing that the Democrats breathed a sigh of relief thinking that establishment politics would continue to carry the day. Instead it was a grave miscalculation. I'm losing my train of thought because I need to go to bed, but the crux of my argument is that the "leftist" party openly refused to be leftist. When people wanted to advance progressive ideals like never before the party chose to reign in people's hopes and expectations. I'm not sure the Democratic party can reconcile these problems. The party establishment actively rejects the economic desires of their base. Economics is the foundation of all politics. All good things flow from economic success and all bad things come from economic recession. The current economic system is damaging far more people than its rewarding and until Democrats decide to challenge it head on they will remain a gilded "leftist" party with diminishing power as their base continues to be disillusioned and slowly drifts away.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:I think the Democrats lost because the Democratic party is inherently flawed. They rely on leftist rhetoric to rally their base but have no intention on fighting to implement leftist policy. This is because the Democratic party is not truly leftist. They want to be centrists. But centrist doesn't actually mean "center of political thought" anymore. It means status quo; the economic center which means "how things are." It really isn't just an American problem either, many other countries have seen their "center-left" fall apart in the last decade. That said, I think I am more worried about the United States simply because there is no alternative to the two-party system. In most of the world, there is an least the hope a new party can come along and replace the former center-left. In the US, we are stuck with the Democrats and their lovely decisions. If anything it is why they are so arrogant, there is no other choice for many people. I think Trump saw this playing out, and his entire strategy was based on taking over one of the two parties then building a coalition of that party's base and disaffected people from the other side. It worked. The thing is I don't think the DNC are going to learn a thing because they are expecting another opening soon and know yet again people will be trapped into voting for them again. They may win the presidency or the Senate again which will confirm to them that no change is really necessary. It is also why I think most of 21st century is going to be about right-populism/nationalism. In end, I think it is going to be pretty ugly and I don't know when it is going to end, since the foundation of our entire economic system is only going to fuel it. Oh yeah a GMI isn't going to fix it since the tax revenue to fund such a program is absolutely not going to exist. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 10:10 on Nov 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 10:05
|
|
|
Some stuff to touch on.quote:Failure to rally the base and inspire people to vote. This is definitely true but I've become increasingly concerned at just how divided this country has become and I think just rallying and frothing up your base and going your own way without making any efforts to listen to your opposition is a huge problem. But, Democrats have been trying to do that for a long time. We have always been more willing to compromise and make deals whereas the Republicans have abandoned all pretense of cooperation and gone almost full into just pushing their own messages and agendas and stopping the Democrats from doing anything. And Democrats efforts to reach across the line and be reasonable and mature were not reciprocated and seemed to actually help Republicans choke them out of government positions. So, partnership, maturity, respect and compromise was a losing position. Stubborn, dedicated self-interest and complete unwillingness to compromise won and we lost so maybe you're right and this is just the way it has to be. This is the ugly reality where the only winning path is hyper partisanship and factions, no compromise. The dream of working together, meeting somewhere in the middle, and trying to discover what was best for America together was just that, a dream. The way forward might just be reacting to total jackasses by being an equally total jackass since treating them with respect and trying to be the better person just lead to us getting completely hosed over. quote:Stronger together vs Make America Great Again. Maybe you're right. Maybe people actually balked at being called on to do some work to make things better and create the change. People do seem more inclined towards low effort and short term profits over long term prosperity. We probably prefer to just not do poo poo and have everything handed to us and taken care of for us. It's all about that instant gratification. People ran to the lie of magically making things the way they used to be and did not like the truth that things had changed and in response we had to adapt and change. The thing is I am still not sure we have the numbers and the support to win with just our base. Looking at all the red on the district maps this election it's hard not to think that we are simply outnumbered. I am not sure we can win if we don't appeal to the majority the way Clinton tried, but apparently failed, to do. The truth is liberal ideas and agendas have been given a bad rap and they've largely fallen out of favor with what I believe is the majority of Americans. Democrats have been getting pushed out of local, state and federal government positions in droves. We've been losing ground and relevance for a long time while Republicans built up a power base and then gerrymandered and voter suppressed their way into a virtually unassailable majority. And it was because they were able to claim these local government positions that they were able to draw the district lines and build an environment that benefitted Republicans. But why were Democrats driven out of local governments in the first place? I'm just not sure. It was probably a combination of running weak candidates and having a message and agenda which does not seem to resonate with the majority. It didn't help that we were successfully vilified and blamed for everything. So in truth, Democrats have been losing bigly for a long loving time and I feel that if we cannot find a way to appeal to the majority we are never going to come back from this. Relying on minorities and people who care about minorities just doesn't seem to be enough. There apparently aren't enough of us to win. That's the way I see it anyway. And I have no idea how we are going to win the majority over to our side when they find our ideas and agendas so distasteful and they are not convinced by facts, data, and evidence. (I honestly believe our ideas and agendas are not only good, but that they work.) And I have no idea how we are ever going to get a foothold in districts so painstakingly suppressed and gerrymandered. That's just the way I see it. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 12:29
|
|
|
Relating to Trump's ability to win women voters, despite his overt sexism. I read a short interview from a poor, white, working class female Trump voter who said that if she were ever in a room alone with him, she'd punch him in the face because she thinks he treats women like poo poo, but she still voted for him because Clinton offered her nothing economically, and he did. That is incredibly anecdotal, but I imagine similar sentiment is shared by a lot of poor white women who did not enthusiastically vote for Trump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 12:44
|
|
|
Jenner posted:They are called minorities because they are a minority of the population. This isn't the case. A group can constitute >50% of the population and still be considered a 'minority.' Ytlaya posted:My guess as to the reason for the discrepancy between polls and what happened is that - rather than the "silent Trump voter" effect - many voters, due to a combination of Hillary not being a very appealing candidate and projections of an almost-definite Hillary victory, just decided not to bother voting. These people may have supported Hillary in polls, but there just wasn't enough motivation for a lot of them to go to the polls. Since Hilary's loss seems more related to her dearth of votes than people voting for Trump, this seems more likely than the "tons of rural people that didn't show up in polls voted for Trump" hypothesis. This is my (unverified) take. People got inundated with polls and messaging saying that she was going to win and didn't bother to show up. I have an acquaintance who is a huge Trump supporter and even she was convinced on Monday that he probably wasn't going to win. AvesPKS fucked around with this message at 13:23 on Nov 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 13:14
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:So should I laugh when Trump inevitably fails to bring jobs back to rural America or should I feel bad for these people? Nah, laugh. Ignorance is no excuse, they should have known better. I'm going to be there to gloat over these motherfuckers when they are all homeless or their lives are ruined. No sympathy for my fellow Americans from here on out, I am done with that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 13:40
|
|
|
Cool thread, was hoping to see something like this. I think there's a temptation to make really reductive analyses in times like this - to blame everything on one or two factors, like "the racists" or "Hillary's weaknesses" or "neoliberalism", whatever matches our personal biases. I think we should be going the other way and opening this up, so I thought I'd list all the different explanations I've heard here and elsewhere for the election result, regardless of what I actually think, and maybe we could add more, break down how true they are, how much impact they had etc.? Maybe a dumb idea, I dunno. 1. Demographics
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
What happened? Apathy. People didn't like Clinton, there was nothing exciting about her or Tim Kaine other than "not Trump." Strategically the Democratic Party underestimated the populist current and its power, doubled down on the "I will be a standard So while the polls--nearly everywhere--showed that, all things being equal the population preferred Clinton. It's just that many of them couldn't bother to go vote for her (or hated her so much they chose not to vote). Trump on the other hand highly mobilized the racists, jingoists, xenophobes, and the white middle class/rich people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
El Pollo Blanco posted:Relating to Trump's ability to win women voters, despite his overt sexism. I read a short interview from a poor, white, working class female Trump voter who said that if she were ever in a room alone with him, she'd punch him in the face because she thinks he treats women like poo poo, but she still voted for him because Clinton offered her nothing economically, and he did. Having done a lot of canvassing this cycle, in Nebraska, and talking to voters of every stripe, this matches up closely to what I've heard. Essentially, they would say that they wouldn't get a long with Trump as a person and they wouldn't want him as a neighbor or friend, but that it's not why they vote for a President. They don't interact with the Donald on a personal level, and they care about his economic policies and willingness to highlight those issues as well as problems with the political establishment. A fair few of them also expressed that they liked his "all Americans" position, and actually spoke to a hope that minorities would reap significant economic benefits from changes they hoped that Trump would bring. I think that there is also a very real problem with perceiving the opposition as orcs, and it's not like the voters are unaware of this kind of aspersion. A lot of these folks are genuinely good or at least well-intentioned people, who actually want to see tangible beneficial change brought to Americans at large. I think that's important to understand, and I don't know that it's helpful when people I work with paint 55mil+ American voters as monsters. Voters I spoke to were honestly surprised that I gave them the time of day, and I encouraged them to look at the candidate that I was working for. By really listening and having open exchanges with these people, I managed to actually get a pretty respectable number of Republicans off of the Don Bacon express - not enough, I suppose, but I tried to what I could.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
I think it was in the first post-debate analysis that people were saying that one of Trump's genuinely workable attacks on Clinton was: "You had 30 years to fix this, why didn't you fix it?" Now, in the media-savvy, debates-are-all-about-scoring-points level of discussion, Clinton managed to deflect the attack. Get Trump to say something stupid, change the subject, whatever. But Clinton never actually answered the question, either. And perhaps people noticed. Max Awfuls posted:The thing about working class white people handing the election to Trump on the basis that they want to fight back against the tax dodging billionaires that are taking away their jobs to foreign countries is that they are protest voting through atax dodging billionaire that outsources his jobs to foreign countries. He is the literal embodyment of all they are raillying against and it's perplexing they can't see the contradiction in what they are doing. It doesn't matter that Trump can't actually do it. People want to be pandered to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I think it was in the first post-debate analysis that people were saying that one of Trump's genuinely workable attacks on Clinton was: Forget what have you done in 30 years. What did Obama do in 8 years? He saved the economy in 2008 but since then we still kind of stuck in limbo. She can't run as the continuation of the status quo when the status quo is lukewarm for the country and downright horrible for certain people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
Jenner posted:Some stuff to touch on. I've been hearing this at places, specifically from the dude in your avatar, and I'm sorry this is just bullshit. The country isn't "divided" because both sides can't seem to compromise, it's divided because one side is loving insane and refuses to compromise. People who point out poo poo like "look! half of both parties think the other side is harmful! Thus we need to come together!" are idiots. If I got a group klansman and got a group of black high school students picked at random and asked each of them if they believe the other side is harmful to them, every single one of them is going to say "yes". That doesn't mean that they both need to calm down and talk to "meet in the middle", that just means one them does. Basically the opposition shouldn't be listened to, and we shouldn't give a flying gently caress what they think and how angry some of them get. There is no such thing as progress coming without the country being divided. Most of the huge labor gains that came in Europe and are coming in South America are resulting in their nations being very divided, much like never before. During the Civil Rights era, there was a huge divide on the social level with the Generation Gap and the fact that terrorism (on both sides) was very common. But guess what? That's how you change things. You fight for them and force them through, otherwise they will never get passed. The other side isn't going to move by us meeting them in the middle, they are going to move either by us proving to them that our side is better (i.e. some of the poor and working class whites who voted for Obama in 2012 but not Hillary) and others who are going to be forced into it as we drag them by their feet while they are kicking and screaming, scratching the floor boards. There are more of us then there are of them, they are a dying breed, if they don't want to accept that, then we will make them by creating a world where our viewpoint is the reality. punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Nov 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
gently caress it, everyone else is posting screeds, might as well throw mine into the ring. I was processing this morning writing from a Filipino perspective, so maybe this is all too foreign and ignorant and myopic, but what the hell.quote:Liberalism failing? Clearly. Can I stop you right there? Because you're right. It did. The post-WW2 status quo of liberal democracy as the gold standard of the Western world (and whoever they tried to export their values to, ergo us) was propped up on the back of the previously untapped American economy activated by half a decade of war production and massive global infrastructure spending as the remains of Europe and Asia were rebuilt from their shattered foundations. But that delicate balance was contingent on the presence of a clear and present danger that would serve as a unifying fulcrum for broad political coalitions to implement socialist solutions, whether you're talking about the Fear of Communism, or as in the case of specifically American politics, Fear of the Black Man. Only, the Soviet Union fell in 1991, and African-Americans were granted their rights (at least on paper) between 1964 and 1965, and progressivism has been on the back foot ever since, dealing with backlash from people thinking that it's coming too far and too fast, and no single threat to rail against. In the long-running struggle between neoliberalism and outright fascism, it's always been just one election away from the house of cards all toppling down, and it's always been held together by a liberal that manages to cobble together a coalition on the strength of their character and personality. Whether that's Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, or even, yes, Benigno Aquino III. poo poo, Aquino didn't even have a personality - he just managed to have his mother die at the right place at the right time, right? And the UK didn't even go through this phase at all! They just went straight from Tony Blair, to Gordon Brown, to David Cameron, to Theresa May. Conservative shills the whole lot of them. So you're right, liberalism didn't work. Income inequality is still really loving bad. Who cares about the unemployment rate when the one job you do have isn't enough to pay the bills, and working two jobs will kill you? Which takes us to 2016. People have a choice between more liberalism, or THAT GUY who'll bring back manufacturing, rejuvenate industry, and end the rule of the elites. Sure, it's a campaign based on bigotry and hatred, but I NEED THAT JOB. I NEED THAT MONEY. Aquino didn't make that happen for me, and whatever incrementalism proposed by Roxas certainly won't either. So Brexit it is. Duterte it is. Trump it is. When Duterte promises industrialization, and when Trump promises to bring back all those jobs that China stole, they're doing it at the expense of an outgroup - whether that's "drug traffickers" or "Muslims and Mexicans". And the people who vote for them are okay with that outgroup being assaulted and discriminated against, because they can't afford to be tolerant when they're going to starve otherwise. It's socialism, but only for the people you like. Alternatively, the choice should be ... an actual, literal left-wing party, except those don't exist anymore. They've been swatted down by a century of fearmongering, get tangled up in old outdated ideals such as Maoism returning everyone to the rice fields, lambasted for having a history of awful authoritarianism, and rendered useless by "The End of History" coming in the 90s. So when given the choice between the neoliberal and the fascist, people are going to pull the lever for the fascist. It's regrettable that the fascist is going to make other people suffer, but times are tough, and I need to look out for number one. And the sad part is, the fascist isn't even going to be able to help! It doesn't matter how many goddamned steel mills Duterte builds, people are still going to buy from China or whoever because it's cheaper and we have globe-crossing ships now. It doesn't matter how hard Trump promises to bring back jobs, low-level manufacturing isn't ever going to be affordable to do in the United States. I mean yeah, it'd be nice if the white, blue collar male that decided to back the Republican candidate yesterday actually got something good out of the deal, even at the cost of however many minorities killed due to post-election violence and the normalization of racism, but he's still going to get screwed over when the GOP decides to blow up the debt ceiling and implement austerity measures in the coming recession. Whoops! So while I understand why someone might vote for Duterte, and why someone might vote for Trump, comprehending their decision-making only evokes a mixture of sympathy and pity. Ben Diokno / Paul Ryan will raise your taxes next year, and then they're going to lower corporate taxes immediately afterwards. Sonny Angara / Mitch McConnell will pass a bill to gut the estate tax so that the Koch Brothers or whoever the gently caress will get to pass 100% of their accumulated wealth onto their offspring, and we will both lose.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
Infinotize posted:What can people do to help fix the broken DNC and put a stop, or at least lower chance to this happening again? There's always voting progressive in primaries but this is a very infrequent opportunity. Get involved locally, do this everywhere. It will carry upwards. On a political level, it is easy to abstract away and other-ize entire groups of people. You can sit at home and think “wow those Trump supporters are bunch of racists Nazis from Jupiter” but this is only a minority of cases. On TV you saw rallies, and how many rallies did you go to at all? People at rallies are naturally a step up on the excitement scale. Yet, Trump underperformed Romney in 2012 by almost a million votes, and in general, there were some 6-7 million votes not cast compared to 2016 and 16 million compared to 2008. And surveys vary in how much anyone hated either candidate and in the end Hillary did barely win the popular vote it appears, though we use an EV system (which I think is better anyway, personally and that is a long debate). Enthusiasm was extremely low on both ends, so no one showed up. Low turnout historically favors right or conservative candidates. This is also why conservatives do a good job in mid-terms and local/state elections. The far-left tend to believe they saw this coming, sure whatever. The fact is turn out matters as do votes. And if a candidate has the allure of a PTO meeting about school lunches, you can expect similar enthusiasm. So don’t assume Trump supporters are an unruly mob. Is racism/sexism a problem? Yes, for some. Does it matter to them? On some level, yes, but not as much as the betrayal they feel from the past 20+ years as manufacturing has drifted away. Ultimately, people subscribed to Maslow’s hierarchy and if their basic needs are met, they are far more approachable. When you’ve watched your town or region, built to be a company town, disappear and you sit unemployed or doing scratch-work for years, you start to have nothing to lose. Then you lash out and make bad decisions. Remember the last time you were angry and did something stupid? Imagine that for a generation. So when any politician, liberal or otherwise, rides in and tries to sway them with pure policy talk, it won’t work. You cannot rationalize someone out of a situation they did not rationalize themselves into and trying that is like politely asking a cougar to exit a crawl space. Therefore, don’t resort to name calling and de-humanizing them. It can be funny. I am guilty of this. Democrats and others have failed because they try to ride in on a horse and tell them how it is. This is partially why Clinton failed. These people are scared and the idea of “trust me I’ll make it great” is far more appealing than “we’ll grow things by a minor percentage in a pragmatic way!”. But what you have to do is not worry about all that garbage. Unless you become a billionaire, your opinion at a national level is not very important. Start local. If you live in an actual town, check into the city council or whatever local government you have. If you are in the middle of nowhere, check the county level. Find some meeting that interests you, consult the local party of your choice, and go. Listen for a while. Interact with people. Find the opposing side and hang out with them. Empathy is the only way to reach people consistently. At the local level, you’ll find decent ideas will often be accepted. No one at the 13th precinct in Wakkawakkaville cares about your views on the military industrial complex when they just want to decide the budget for the yearly city trash collection. But those decisions matter and improve where you live, and ultimately isn’t that what is most important? If local government is that boring, still check for volunteer activities that are related. You should run into the same people. Try to recruit able-bodied neighbors. Pick up trash, whatever. Teach someone to read, who never learned because they got pressed into a factory. Make everything in your area beautiful. That’s how change occurs. Consider legal weed, regardless of your stance, that’s an example of how an issue gets changed. It starts small and goes through the states. No amount of federal control can stop things like that if there is a popular consensus. Legislatures from the ground up are where the real change happens. Don’t succumb to the Great Man theory of history. Relax, take a deep breath. The US has survived worse besides the Civil War, you may not remember. Memory fades quickly. Especially with regards to labor and rights. There are incidents too numerous to name. So be mindful, be nice and try to improve everything. Violence is actually at record lows, the sun still works, and if you live in the US, you will avoid most of the calamities of climate change at their worst. Don’t hide, vote. Suggested reading – https://www.amazon.com/Trump-Art-Deal-Donald-J/dp/0399594493/ https://www.amazon.com/Daily-Stewart-Presents-America-Teachers/dp/0446691860/ https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Rational-Voter-Democracies-Policies/dp/0691138737 https://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted-World-Science-Candle-Dark/dp/0345409469/ For wonks – https://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-Century-Thomas-Piketty/dp/067443000X/ https://www.amazon.com/ABCs-Political-Economy-Modern-Approach/dp/0745318576/
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
^^^^Hell, sometimes even watching the cynic videos are inspiring because of their obvious flaws in their arguments. It's ironic as it attempts to destroy hope from politics, but in its very own theory you can stick a huge hole it by saying "what if a majority of people were dedicated in having specific things accomplished?" Thinking of it, this election literally proved the general theory of the video wrong. Trump managed to take down the entire Republican party despite everyone working against him without even that much popular support.
punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Nov 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:47 |
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:I've been hearing this at places, specifically from the dude in your avatar, and I'm sorry this is just bullshit. The country isn't "divided" because both sides can't seem to compromise, it's divided because one side is loving insane and refuses to compromise. People who point out poo poo like "look! half of both parties think the other side is harmful! Thus we need to come together!" are idiots. If I got a group klansman and got a group of black high school students picked at random and asked each of them if they believe the other side is harmful to them, every single one of them is going to say "yes". That doesn't mean that they both need to calm down and talk to "meet in the middle", that just means one them does. Basically the opposition shouldn't be listened to, and we shouldn't give a flying gently caress what they think and how angry some of them get. There is no such thing as progress coming without the country being divided. Most of the huge labor gains that came in Europe and are coming in South America are resulting in their nations being very divided, much like never before. During the Civil Rights era, there was a huge divide on the social level with the Generation Gap and the fact that terrorism (on both sides) was very common. But guess what? That's how you change things. You fight for them and force them through, otherwise they will never get passed. The other side isn't going to move by us meeting them in the middle, they are going to move either by us proving to them that our side is better (i.e. some of the poor and working class whites who voted for Obama in 2012 but not Hillary) and others who are going to be forced into it as we drag them by their feet while they are kicking and screaming, scratching the floor boards. There are more of us then there are of them, they are a dying breed, if they don't want to accept that, then we will make them by creating a world where our viewpoint is the reality.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 16:48
|
|