As someone aptly put it on twitter (Nate Cohn), the "white working class" is voting like a minority block--and why would they not? The elites have ignored the working class (white and black) for ages and when they do think of them, white (and other) elites look down at them with the contempt of 'white privilege' while they, the elite whites, sit comfortably in their protected perches rarely exposing themselves to insecurity.
It's possible this is a consequence of overplaying identity politics used to try and counterbalance Trump's followers' politics. In other words the working class had their identity unintentially forged in the scrum of identity politics.
It is not only the white working class - she captures Latinos and Blacks with a lot lower margins than Obama.
You cannot take a person's vote for you for granted. Last week a life long anticommunist in my country voted for the communist candidate - he just said "fuck it, I want to see the face of the ruling party hit the pavement".
And a lot of whites obviously got fed up with being used as an intellectual punching pag
That's the thing that has struck me the most about the Clinton campaign. It's been incredibly lazy, as if Clinton were the anointed one who simply had to waltz to the White House. Not wanting to debate. Not putting in the work of campaigning, at least compared to Trump's marathon schedule. The arrogance and condescension at having to even be involved in the race against her opponent.
Well, She's not going to get the same energy from black voters as Obama --Obama was once in a lifetime unifying and exciting effect on the black electorate. As for the Hispanic vote, not sure what happened there --except there are more than one kind of person of latam descent wealthy, middle-class, Cuban, Mexican, undereducated, Americanized, some who still feel more Latin American than American, etc.
Blacks are also not monilith block. I can tell you what happened - parts of the communities showed the Dems that they do not protect their interests enough - sadly in two party system this means burning the house to the ground.
I'm not a Trump supporter, but he is no idiot. He's a 'populist genius'. The leaders in 'Idiocracy' were truly idiots.
He was 'charismatic' in kind of a perverse/uncliassical way ... enough to motivate enough people to tip the scales.
I think we will finally see the 'real Donald Trump' when he starts doing the actual work. I'm very interested, but honestly, I'm worried, I think the risk is high.
I dunno, I think that kind of thinking is what likely sunk Hillary's campaign. Discounting the working class as undeserving, as the ones who meekly assume the role of punching bag for all ills we cannot ascribe to anyone else.
I think the working class was really tired of Globalism. I'm as liberal as they get, but building in the cheapest country always bothered me.
I get hammered for this, but we buy Apple products. We pay a premium. We are told Apple has to build overseas, in order to sell us products at their low prices. Then they have the gut wrenching corporate problem of too much cash?
I'm sorry--it always bothered me.
That said, I'll be shocked if Trump succeeds in bringing back manufacturing. Those senators are not going to raise Tarriffs, or do anything to upset their corporate lobbiests.
> I think the working class was really tired of Globalism...I'm sorry--it always bothered me.
It's not just globalism - it's global competition. Even if the US repeals NAFTA and other trade agreements and economically isolates itself, competition from Japan, China and Germany will remain.
The golden age of American manufacturing wasn't possible just because Glabalism wasn't in existence - it was possible because there was no competition since countries were rebuilding in the aftermath of WWII
>That said, I'll be shocked if Trump succeeds in bringing back manufacturing. Those senators are not going to raise Tarriffs, or do anything to upset their corporate lobbiests.
True, but one could say he now has the bully pulpit from which to rail against those same senators for whatever they will refuse to do with him.
Trump isn't going to bring back manufacturing, but he's also not going to double the size of the H1B program. I'm glad I didn't vote for him, but I'm also glad he won :/
Both the super fiscally conservative and the more... unpleasant parts of Trump's voting block would never vote for someone as liberal as Sanders. I have a hard time believing anyone that would have voted for him would vote Trump, now if you think it would've swayed enough people who voted 3rd party to vote Sanders instead you might have something.
The thrust of the essay is that people don't vote by issues but by charisma - and Sanders has more charisma than Hillary. And he is also an anti-establishment candidate.
Her narrative is its all about me... rules/laws don't apply to me and I will do anything to get where I want including let a man walk all over me to try and get to the top.
It's 2016 and do women not need a better role model then that old way of thinking? Especially if they are proud and tough and do not take any crap from a guy.
Is it fun? I think if you buy his story it might be fun. I feel pretty strong on my economics, and listening to Sanders talking was just disappointing.
When the hit-piece anecdote came up that Sanders was asked for leave a commune for lollygagging instead of working, it rang SO true for me. I know that it's overall a small irrelevant week in a whole life, but it really painted what kind of guy he is. http://freebeacon.com/politics/bernie-sanders-asked-leave-hi...
Part of me balks at the idea due to his personality, yet another part looks at how Trump's polarizing nature pulled enough people to himself to do what not so long ago seemed unthinkable. While in an entirely different way Bernie is certainly a polarizing figure, and perhaps that is what was needed to go up against someone like Trump.
At this point I just don't know. Too much to process.
I have dozens of friends who were energized about Bernie. 250 of my FB friends like his page. I know exactly one person who really supported Hillary. 28 of my FB friends like her page. I saw many people post saying they were very disillusioned by her becoming the candidate. I also have some very liberal friends who specifically dislike Hillary and not only refused to support her, but opposed her.
Sanders had energetic youth support similar to Obama, but more so. I believe he would have won.
"Theory: In US presidential elections, the more charismatic candidate wins.
People who write about politics, whether on the left or the right, have a consistent bias: they take politics seriously. When one candidate beats another they look for political explanations. The country is shifting to the left, or the right. And that sort of shift can certainly be the result of a presidential election, which makes it easy to believe it was the cause.
But when I think about why I voted for Clinton over the first George Bush, it wasn't because I was shifting to the left. Clinton just seemed more dynamic. He seemed to want the job more. Bush seemed old and tired. I suspect it was the same for a lot of voters."
Trump is entertaining to watch. Even though I find him a buffoon I still find him fun to watch. Hillary has more experience, matches my views on policy but she is a bore to watch, I can't bear it.
(I'm Canadian, and our immigration server is now down due to the load).
I don't find him particularly charismatic. I'd probably punch the dude in the mouth if I had to deal with him and his attitude in person.
But your points about populist economics are the bigger cause I believe. But then I'm a Bernie supporter who knew he could steal that issue from Trump. C'est la vie.
I think pg's quality could also be termed "dynamism", which Americans have historically been very drawn to at the polls.
If one feels that the current economic outlook is not good for oneself, then I can absolutely see preferring a candidate who seems excited in proportion to the perceived challenge. And I would chalk the advantage there to Trump.
The fact the so many progressive's response is to want to "punch the dude in the mouth" is exactly the kind of oppresive political correctness Trump voters are rebelling against.
I know a number of Trump supporters. The issues are outsourcing, outsourcing, job losses due to cheap overseas labor, and outsourcing, in roughly that order.
Few people on either side actually care enough about PC to sway an election. This is a rebellion against the economic effects of globalization on the working class. Look at Michigan and Ohio.
I also agree with the parent that Trump is not all that charismatic.
Not exactly political correctness but it is contempt. I think the contempt for Trump and his supporters by the other side explains a lot of both the result and the incorrect predictions in advance of the election. A lot of the country literally could not imagine a Trump win.
The contempt stems from political correctness. Political correctness isn't some superficial outrage, it's the genuine belief that people who don't hold progressive beliefs are bad people who need to be punished. Trump can't convince progressives that his views are reasonable, but he can show that these views can't be repressed anymore.
You think punching someone in the mouth is political correctness?
I didn't say anything about his politics, which you of course ignored because you wanted to trot out some inanities based on generalities of people you don't even know.
When you said "I'd probably punch the dude in the mouth if I had to deal with him and his attitude in person." I assumed you were including his political views.
I hadn't accounted for you just being a generally violent angry person.
Trump has an attitude and an approach to dealing with people who disagree with him. His (public) interpersonal style rubs me very much the wrong way. I understand the temptation to want to punch him, and it's not because of his politics. Nor is it because I am a generally violent angry person. It's because Trump is (in public) a bully, and I deeply resent that style of interaction.
Overall, 6 of 29 modern elections were won by strongly charismatic leaders (Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, JFK); another 4 elections were won by well-liked but uncharismatic figures, Eisenhower and Reagan. About 80% of the time, an uncharismatic person wins the presidency.
BS. Reagan Like trump was a popular actor and was very charismatic.
Importantly Trump (likely) lost the popular vote by a large margin. But he focused on the few areas that actually count. Remember the extra 250 thousand Hillary voters in DC count for 3, the significantly smaller margin in Florida, and PA count for 49.
Things change over time. Nowadays people are inundated by video of the candidates for over a year straight up to the election. Back then that certainly wasn't the case, especially before the time of television. I'm certain charisma plays more of a factor now than it used to.
It's possible this is a consequence of overplaying identity politics used to try and counterbalance Trump's followers' politics. In other words the working class had their identity unintentially forged in the scrum of identity politics.