Trump = Tea Party + Low Info Voters?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump was put over the top by fed up people in, among other places, PA, MI, and WI. It might be a good idea to learn about their experiences, especially like their decades-long descent into very unpleasant circumstances. Trump offered them both a roll of the dice on something different and a chance to give the middle finger to those who prospered and were indifferent to their suffering. None of this assures he can help them, but that's where it's at.

Yes, people rolled the dice hoping for something different, but I think the source of the decline goes back 30+ years. Longer than that if you can consider racism as something that helped weaken the working class, which it did.

Some of it does, hence my, as PP, use of 'decades'. But a lot of it is recent as well. It has many factors, but in addition to racism weakening the working class, you have to blame the actions of both parties' elites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump was put over the top by fed up people in, among other places, PA, MI, and WI. It might be a good idea to learn about their experiences, especially like their decades-long descent into very unpleasant circumstances. Trump offered them both a roll of the dice on something different and a chance to give the middle finger to those who prospered and were indifferent to their suffering. None of this assures he can help them, but that's where it's at.

Oh please. In Trumpland, indifference = expanding health care, tax cuts, affordable college, increased minimum wage....face it, only a low information voter could set out looking for economic policies supporting the working and middle class and say, "yeah, GOP, that's the ticket!"

And let's not forget, the working class actually voted for Clinton. It's only the white working class that seems to have a peculiar, race-based "economic anxiety."

And I'm not saying Trump voters don't feel this way - they all seem very convinced their resentment is purely economic and not at all race-based - but as with most things Trump-voter-related, it is inconsistent with reality.

Firstly, approximately 60M voted for Trump, something like 2-4 as many people as are adherents of Judaism worldwide. A similarly broad-brushed attempt at atavism aimed at Jews would rightfully be dismissed as anti-Semitism. Think about that for just a minute.

And the 'working class' is another amorphous group. Working class blacks voted large majorities for Clinton, but were unenthusiastic and hence displayed low turnout. That cost her in these states.

My first post in this sub-thread is only to highlight that in each of the pivotal states, there were areas that went for BHO, almost always twice, but went for Trump in 2016. Many of these communities have seen horrific conditions including massive addiction and plunging life expectancy. And if you want to claim "race-based "economic anxiety." is a sham, do note their past voting record AND the role of Democratic elites in producing these conditions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are many components to the Trump coalition- most importantly of ALL the non-voters who did not come out for Hillary.
But in the mix of the Trump voters I see two groups that are in direct opposition to each other:

1) The anti-goverment extremists--> these are those who would have voted for Cruz and would never never ever vote Democratic

2) the pro-goverment as long as it benefits ME types. --> these are for example the votes that hate Obamacare because the Medicaid expansion was not big enough and did not cover them. They are there and they are many. These are also those who liked Bernie Sanders.

You can entice 1 and 2 at the same time during the campaign, but I think you can't really please them both while governing.

I think you're forgetting a third and overlapping group: those who voted against corruption they thought Hillary would bring.

I'm wondering what that crowd thinks right now. Trump is holding on to Twitter so he can tell them what to think, but it can't last.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump was put over the top by fed up people in, among other places, PA, MI, and WI. It might be a good idea to learn about their experiences, especially like their decades-long descent into very unpleasant circumstances. Trump offered them both a roll of the dice on something different and a chance to give the middle finger to those who prospered and were indifferent to their suffering. None of this assures he can help them, but that's where it's at.

The fed-up people will be standing there staring at their hands wondering why mining jobs haven't shown up on their doorsteps. And the wealthy will prosper and business will go on as usual. Bread and circuses for the fed-up so they stop making Trump feel uncomfortable.

Understand many of those fed up folks voted for BHO twice, check the vote totals as this is abundantly clear.

BHO was also a roll of the dice. And thanks to BHO the wealthy prospered and business went on as usual. You can disagree with the Trump voters who put him over the top, but I ask where were you all these years?

Many people who would not call themselves "wealthy" did just fine and will do fine regardless of the president because they have required skills. There are loads of unskilled-low skilled people in the USA. Trump should have been offering them an education, free GED classes, whatever. Never mind a wall. Maybe he will at least hire them to build the wall?

Just watch-- Mexico will literally build the wall. On our side of the border, there will be Mexicans building the wall as employees of sub-contractors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many components to the Trump coalition- most importantly of ALL the non-voters who did not come out for Hillary.
But in the mix of the Trump voters I see two groups that are in direct opposition to each other:

1) The anti-goverment extremists--> these are those who would have voted for Cruz and would never never ever vote Democratic

2) the pro-goverment as long as it benefits ME types. --> these are for example the votes that hate Obamacare because the Medicaid expansion was not big enough and did not cover them. They are there and they are many. These are also those who liked Bernie Sanders.

You can entice 1 and 2 at the same time during the campaign, but I think you can't really please them both while governing.

I think you're forgetting a third and overlapping group: those who voted against corruption they thought Hillary would bring.

I'm wondering what that crowd thinks right now. Trump is holding on to Twitter so he can tell them what to think, but it can't last.

Yes, true. A lot of those also did not vote at all.

I am starting to see the "benefits" of Trump's election. HRC would have brought scandals and shame onto the policies I love.
It sucks right now, but it's going to be better in the long run.
I also enjoy watching GOP scramble to Replace the ACA with their better cheaper magical plan that does not take away any of the good and gets rid of all of the bad.
I mean, I am sure they will come up with *something*, I am also sure that people will hate it and demand Single Payer/buy-into Medicare for all in short order.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump was put over the top by fed up people in, among other places, PA, MI, and WI. It might be a good idea to learn about their experiences, especially like their decades-long descent into very unpleasant circumstances. Trump offered them both a roll of the dice on something different and a chance to give the middle finger to those who prospered and were indifferent to their suffering. None of this assures he can help them, but that's where it's at.

The fed-up people will be standing there staring at their hands wondering why mining jobs haven't shown up on their doorsteps. And the wealthy will prosper and business will go on as usual. Bread and circuses for the fed-up so they stop making Trump feel uncomfortable.

Understand many of those fed up folks voted for BHO twice, check the vote totals as this is abundantly clear.

BHO was also a roll of the dice. And thanks to BHO the wealthy prospered and business went on as usual. You can disagree with the Trump voters who put him over the top, but I ask where were you all these years?

Many people who would not call themselves "wealthy" did just fine and will do fine regardless of the president because they have required skills. There are loads of unskilled-low skilled people in the USA. Trump should have been offering them an education, free GED classes, whatever. Never mind a wall. Maybe he will at least hire them to build the wall?

Just watch-- Mexico will literally build the wall. On our side of the border, there will be Mexicans building the wall as employees of sub-contractors.

So we will be paying Mexico for the wall, LOL.
Way to stimulate the Mexican economy.

[Anonymous]

This comment on the article below is pretty hard braking:

Very similar story here on the Iron Range in Minnesota. Formerly strong blue collar factory economy, former strongly democratic and pro-union, and mostly white. Used to be a democrat stronghold, but veered heavily towards Trump. Also extremely hard hit by heroin crisis. These people are mostly friends, family, and former co-workers. I've been watching the slow-motion train wreck for 20 years.
Even though I live and work with them, having studied computer science, I haven't lived the same reality they have. I began my career in the R&D department of an Iron Range manufacturing company. Regrettably, part of my job was building the machines that replaced low-skilled workers. Workers blame trade deals and whatever politicians are in office, but it was me, and their own fault for not knowing how to do other things. The rise of Trump and heroin epidemic are really both born out of the same problem, there are no longer high-paying jobs for people without a higher education.
It is really a blow from two sides. People working in factories end up with a lot of chronic repetitive motion injuries. Exactly the stuff opioid pain killers are used for. Take away their job and they lose access to their pain meds. So you have a lot of people already dependent on opioids, who are now depressed and broke. They turn to the illegal drugs to replace their expensive medical care, and to escape their mounting financial problems.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/wilkes-barre-faces-heroin-scourge-turning-it-most-unhappy-place-n699541

The go back and forth between parties, swaying the elections here and there, but there really is no hope.

[Anonymous]

racism is often connected with resentment related to economic issues, whether it be competition for jobs or not wanting to pay taxes for "entitled" others. This seems to be how the alt-right stoked the fires.

[Anonymous]

I don't think all tea partyers voted for Trump. Or are uncritical. Paul? Palin?

[Anonymous]

Also this:

1) Well, the hard part is that we just don't need people to produce things anymore. When you build things with machines, the only people that make money are the people who own the machines, and those that build and maintain those machines. The economy can continue to grow and increase production without adding jobs.
America has long valued hard work. We want our policies to promote work. That isn't a bad idea. It's a good thing to value. The problem is, the economy continually needs less and less hard workers. You will no longer get ahead in life by working hard.
We are stuck with our desire to reward hard work and entrepreneurial spirit. We want to reward innovation with profit. We want to reward hard work with security. It used to be that innovation once required a lot of hard work to succeed. That is no longer the case. Innovation now eliminates work, and our society will have to adapt eventually.

And this:

2) How it adapts will be painful. There are two big obstacles that no one is addressing well. The first is that transportation is so cheap American workers are in direct competition with Mexican and Chinese workers (the simplistic solution is trade restrictions, but that causes prices to rise, and makes us less competitive as a nation, and is a loser in the long run).
The second is that we have a large population that, harsh to say, is not needed. Not being needed is a good reason to turn to self-loathing, or anger, or drug addiction (or Trump voting). Finland is experimenting with direct pay for everyone, which I suppose sounds like communism to rightwingers. But from an engineering perspective, we have the assets to pay out a minimal income to all (like social security starting at age zero) without a signification impact on the living comfort of our wealthiest. As I keep saying, we are richer than ever before as a nation; it doesn't feel like it because the wealth is not spread out.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/finland-to-consider-introducing-universal-basic-income-in-2017-a6963321.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also this:

1) Well, the hard part is that we just don't need people to produce things anymore. When you build things with machines, the only people that make money are the people who own the machines, and those that build and maintain those machines. The economy can continue to grow and increase production without adding jobs.
America has long valued hard work. We want our policies to promote work. That isn't a bad idea. It's a good thing to value. The problem is, the economy continually needs less and less hard workers. You will no longer get ahead in life by working hard.
We are stuck with our desire to reward hard work and entrepreneurial spirit. We want to reward innovation with profit. We want to reward hard work with security. It used to be that innovation once required a lot of hard work to succeed. That is no longer the case. Innovation now eliminates work, and our society will have to adapt eventually.

And this:

2) How it adapts will be painful. There are two big obstacles that no one is addressing well. The first is that transportation is so cheap American workers are in direct competition with Mexican and Chinese workers (the simplistic solution is trade restrictions, but that causes prices to rise, and makes us less competitive as a nation, and is a loser in the long run).
The second is that we have a large population that, harsh to say, is not needed. Not being needed is a good reason to turn to self-loathing, or anger, or drug addiction (or Trump voting). Finland is experimenting with direct pay for everyone, which I suppose sounds like communism to rightwingers. But from an engineering perspective, we have the assets to pay out a minimal income to all (like social security starting at age zero) without a signification impact on the living comfort of our wealthiest. As I keep saying, we are richer than ever before as a nation; it doesn't feel like it because the wealth is not spread out.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/finland-to-consider-introducing-universal-basic-income-in-2017-a6963321.html

I agree with all this, but it makes it look like the problem is intractable and policymakers just play whackamole trying to address all the problems that crop up.

I think the reason Obama spent so much political capital pushing the ACA is because expanding access to healthcare would have hit a lot of birds with one large stone. It's not just about treating the chronic disease that's so prevalent in these communities. If you look at local economies that are doing well, they have robust health care in their midst which create jobs and stimulate businesses that supply and support them.

The other thing America misses that other nations like Germany invest in heavily: public education. Not just K-12 but much easier access to higher education, vocational training and internships. We've devalued K-12 so much while making higher education inaccessible. Even those who can get to college are set up for failure because there's no connection between education and labor.

Let's not forget agriculture, which used to sustain a lot of rural people but has in the last 20 years been grabbed up by conglomerates. The outgoing Secretary of Agriculture worked over the last seven years trying to stimulate localized agribusiness. But that will go away, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump was put over the top by fed up people in, among other places, PA, MI, and WI. It might be a good idea to learn about their experiences, especially like their decades-long descent into very unpleasant circumstances. Trump offered them both a roll of the dice on something different and a chance to give the middle finger to those who prospered and were indifferent to their suffering. None of this assures he can help them, but that's where it's at.

The fed-up people will be standing there staring at their hands wondering why mining jobs haven't shown up on their doorsteps. And the wealthy will prosper and business will go on as usual. Bread and circuses for the fed-up so they stop making Trump feel uncomfortable.

Understand many of those fed up folks voted for BHO twice, check the vote totals as this is abundantly clear.

BHO was also a roll of the dice. And thanks to BHO the wealthy prospered and business went on as usual. You can disagree with the Trump voters who put him over the top, but I ask where were you all these years?

Many people who would not call themselves "wealthy" did just fine and will do fine regardless of the president because they have required skills. There are loads of unskilled-low skilled people in the USA. Trump should have been offering them an education, free GED classes, whatever. Never mind a wall. Maybe he will at least hire them to build the wall?

Just watch-- Mexico will literally build the wall. On our side of the border, there will be Mexicans building the wall as employees of sub-contractors.

Education is the magic solution? Come on! We have exploding student debt because costs are increasing and jobs are no one where near as easy to come by as they used to be. With that in mind, the education thing is a canard.

The problem with unemployment is that the machinery of the state stacks the economy against many workers and instead for wealthy cronies of politicians. This has happened with all administrations since at least Reagan.

We already have a wall. Hillary and others voted for it. It was stupid for show then and is stupid for show now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:racism is often connected with resentment related to economic issues, whether it be competition for jobs or not wanting to pay taxes for "entitled" others. This seems to be how the alt-right stoked the fires.

The alt-right is a small # of internet trolls, less than the margin in any state. HRC hyped them to make herself look better. Richard Spencer is a tool. Please ignore him and all his Pepe-the-Frog friends.

[Anonymous]

Honestly every election is decided by partisans + low information voters.

Low information voters flop back and forth because they blame whomever is in power for their troubles. That's why elections are cyclical. Generally low information voters-being low information- see the party of the President as in charge.
So slowly but surely the party with the Presidency loses everywhere else (States and Congress) and then the cycle repeats. Look at 2000, 2008 and now 2016.
It's all the same except for parties switching.

[Anonymous]

What all of these analysises miss--and what has the GOP salivating--is that Trump's ideas resonated with enough voters in spite of Donald Trump, not because of Donald Trump.

A polished Republican candidate could easily co-opt Trump's populism without the baggage that almost certainly cost Trump lots of votes.

At this point, it's fair to say Obama was a cult of personality instead of a new ideological paradigm. GOP is hoping that whatever votes are accounted for by a cult of personality in Trump's favor are outweighed by votes that could be netted with a similar populist platform in a more polished candidate.

Note, I don't think Dems can make the same populist platform work.