[matwood]

I read that last week, and it's great. I love the part about GWB. I still know people today who call him an idiot, but it is that attitude, and underestimation that helped him win the Presidency twice.

The liberal has become synonymous with elite. If you disagree with a liberal you're uneducated, angry, racist, or pick any other disparaging word. It has caused a divide that crosses right/left, and is instead top/bottom. According to a poll NPR quoted, ~40% of registered democrats voted for Trump. That is why Hilary lost. The Republicans AND Democrats have become parties of the elite. The rise of Trump and Bernie came from those people who are rejecting elite regardless of party.

[seanmcdirmid]

40% of democrats didn't vote at all, that is why Hilary lost. Each candidate getting <25% of the vote coupled with 50% not voting, does not mean people voted for Trump so much as most just stayed home (apathy was the biggest winner in the election). The democrats don't have to win over Trump voters, they just have to convince people to vote at all.

[JackFr]

You realize that staying home was no less an intentional act than voting. Those Democrats who stayed home, stayed home to not vote for Hillary.

The most effective way to get those people to vote is to not have Hillary Clinton as your candidate.

[emp_zealoth]

Where does your certainty that people who stayed home would vote for Clinton come from?

[seanmcdirmid]

Turn out numbers. The people who stayed home were mostly the same demographic that voted for Obama in the last election: Minorities, millennials. Trump didn't magically win over Obama voters, conversions were rare.

[emp_zealoth]

Yet apparently the vote ratio was not that great for Clinton in those demographics either - apparently even 30% of non-white voters went Trump, and what I've seen it was only slightly in favor of Clinton in that demographic too

Again, what makes you think that the people didn't stay because they sure didn't want to vote for Clinton?

(Disclaimer :I am not an US citizen, I identify with Bernie)

I would have never voted for Clinton, even if you paid me.

[matwood]

For as vocal as the never Trump people were, there was also a quieter never Clinton feeling across many groups.

[matwood]

Not voting tells you something too though. Here is the link to NPR article: http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/10/501...

[seanmcdirmid]

It totally does tell you something. Polling didn't get support for Trump wrong, it got support for Hilary wrong instead. The likely voters didn't vote.

[gph]

I think something that might not always be mentioned is that voter turnout likely remains low because of the electoral college.

I only bother voting if there is a referendum or local politician I care about. Neither was true in this election. Living in Maryland I already knew Clinton would carry the state. So why go vote?

I bet there are people like that in deeply red states who feel the same. I bet voter turnout would be higher all around under a Popular vote scenario.

Voter turnout was still low in swing states are well, so I could be wrong. But I think at times people realize their vote is sort of pointless.

[gwright]

> Living in Maryland I already knew Clinton would carry the state. So why go vote?

I think it is helpful in these situations to extend your thinking to everyone else and see if you like the result:

1) My candidate has a big lead in my state so I won't bother to vote. 2) My thinking in 1) is rational and therefore lots of other people will think and behave the same way.

vs.

1) My candidate will only win if their supporters vote for them, so I will vote. 2) My thinking in 1) is rational and therefore lots of other people will think and behave the same way.

So which behavior will most likely lead to your desired outcome?

[Redoubts]

> I think it is helpful in these situations to extend your thinking to everyone else and see if you like the result:

I don't see how this is helpful. The calculus is obviously different between your state being carried 60/35 vs a 50/50 battleground.

[Pinckney]

Merely being aware of the tragedy of the commons won't make it go away.

[gwright]

Who said 'merely'?

[_ea1k]

Yep, literally every race on the ballot here ended exactly as it was expected to, usually with double digit margins. I voted, but I can see why this wasn't motivating for some people.

[oh_sigh]

You could say the same thing about Trump voters....

[Isamu]

To be fair, if you disagree with a conservative, you are naive, power-hungry, and maybe godless.

[matwood]

Absolutely, but 2 things. The GOP has typically been known as the old white guy elite/establishment so, at least in stigma, people already consider them the elite. The second is that the same problem the Democrats had in the general election, the GOP had in the primaries. The GOP didn't want Trump, yet he destroyed every establishment candidate they had. Bernie may have had a similar move on the Democrat side if the DNC had not interfered with the process.

Trump won as the GOP candidate, but based on his history I do not think he is conservative. Many of his ideas are closer to Sanders than people want to admit, and he's likely going to have both sides in a constant uproar.

[AnimalMuppet]

True. The change is that the liberals have the megaphone to a greater degree than they did before. Despite talk radio, the liberals have by far the majority of the media now.

[mmastrac]

The usual online slurs I see: "libtard", "regressive left".

[cmdrfred]

You don't hear the candidates and party officials saying that publicly though. Sure in private they probably say worse but Clinton called the middle of the country a basket of deplorables.

[mavhc]

Well, according to people who installed an app, http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/10/501...