People had voted for Trump not because of lack of empathy, but because they were fed up with being patronized, negged, treated like children, observed, modeled and disempowered, belittled and generally discounted.
What you fail to comprehend is that your contemptuous attitude is the very thing that isn't working anymore. In fact, the more you crank up the rhetoric, the more you will be ignored.
If this election has taught us anything, it is that if we continually scream at and belittle adults, they will eventually ignore us. Every epithet, every word of shame-speak will then fall on deaf ears. We will find ourselves in the very position we placed them in: powerless and irrelevant.
You should be asking yourself: Why was the birther and the racial element so prominent during the Obama years? These things do not happen in a vacuum. They have a root cause, and it is not, as you might conclude, because every Trump voter is a racist, a bigot, or stupid. Think more deeply.
I might also add that by pigeon-holing the entire body who elected Trump into the category of ignorant racist bigots, you are committing the very act of stereo-typing you are decrying. You are discrediting yourself by accusing people of things they know they are not guilty of, and reinforcing your own irrelevance. If empathy is your concern, perhaps you should start with your own.
> If this election has taught us anything, it is that if you continually scream at and belittle adults, they will eventually ignore you.
I thought it was, "if you nominate a candidate against whom a successfull multidecade smear campaign has been run, turnout among the people that are otherwise likely to vote for your party will be dangerously depressed."
Trump was supported by a smaller share of the voting public than the losing candidate in the last Presidential election (about equal to the 2008 loser, and smaller than the losers in 2000 and 2004, as well) -- with less of the eligible population voting at all than in 2012.
> Why was the birther and the racial element so prominent during the Obama years?
The racial element has been a factor in pretty much every US election ever; heck, the stark divisions over racial policy underlies some of the most notorious provisions of the original constitution. It's the single most consistent and enduring political divide in the US. It wold only be noteworthy if it hadn't bee particularly prominent with a black candidate or incumbent in the Presidency.
"What you fail to comprehend is that your contemptuous attitude is the very thing that isn't working anymore."
You must be kidding me. What do you think Trump himself was doing? He is the epitome of an obnoxious screaming asshole, and he won! His approach clearly works.
It's a pity that the Democrats didn't have an anti-Trump on their side. Maybe he could have been the kryptonite that cost Trump the election. As it was, the old polite, wet rag politics that Clinton represented was defeated. (That's not to say that I'd want an anti-Trump as President either, or that I like screaming assholess, as long as they're on the left, but a more confrontational, "tell it like it is" style is clearly what gets media attention and is attractive to a lot of voters.)
In the future, the left needs to be more outspoken and confrontational towards the right, not more compromising and conciliatory as Obama has been, because the latter only leads towards moving the party further to the right.
Instead, the Democrats need to further differentiate themselves from the Republicans, and move further to the left. Otherwise they're going to keep being seen as Republican-lite, and few are going to get excited enough to vote for them (rather merely than voting against an even worse Republican option).
Sadly, given how the Democrats have behaved in the past, it's more likely that as a response to losing to Trump, the Democrats are just going to move even further to the right, in an effort to capture the "independent" vote (who were right-wing enough to vote for Trump this time around) instead of trying to win over the many more people who didn't even bother to vote because they were disillusioned with both the Republicans and Democrats.
You are making an essential error: that of false association. You are equating the behavior of a candidate, and of the candidate's most vocal supporters, with the general demeanor of the people who voted for him. If it were only the vocal or even ardent Trump supporters who voted, he would have lost. He didn't lose because the majority who voted for him were silent, in most cases brow-beaten into silence.
You are also neglecting the fact that Trump won with only 1% more of the white vote than Romney. This was not nearly enough to win. Trump won because of the minority vote. Compared to Romney he won 8% more Latino votes, 7% more black votes, 11% more Asian votes, and 1% other minorities. This statistic does much to counteract the hysterical white resurgence rhetoric. (Source: NYT Exit Polls).
You know what children can't do? Elect another child as the goddamn president. If they could, we'd be well-advised to treat them differently.
Democracies aren't run by whoever knows the most, they're run by whoever wins the election. (Record voter split by education this time, for all that achieved.) We just spent an entire year proving, in the most painful way possible, that treating voters like children doesn't work no matter how much you think of them that way.
You're writing about how the right "shouldn't be surprised" as though you're coming from a position of power, educating people who made bad choices. But we (we, even if I hate these tactics) lost. Lost the White House, lost the Senate, lost the House. 25 states with Republican trifectas, 6 with Democratic ones. (Won the popular vote, fine, San Francisco and New York City are crowded but they won't rule anything unless the secede.) We lost ground with minorities, lost ground with young people, lost ground with women - and this against Trump!
In all sincerity: what are you hoping for by treating people like children? What do you expect will happen, if not what just happened?
it never did for me. in fact i can remember many times in which i deliberately did whatever angered my parents again and again, just to piss them off more, to the point of them crying and having a near-mental breakdown (immigrant parents).
they literally could not process the reality of their child not following their authority 100%, because they grew up in a society in which that was the unquestioned norm.
eventually i conditioned them into not punishing me ever again, because they knew that punishment would beget more of the same unwanted behavior.
part of the reason i don't want kids. i wouldn't know how to handle the rebellion.
Sometimes you need a carrot, and sometimes you need a stick. I tend to think the stick worked better at shaping my behavior as a child, but you can't do that anymore.
He was called a racist many times before, including all the times he was sued for illegal racial discrimination (the first of which was more than 40 years ago.)
Now, maybe that hasn't gotten a lot of media player in places that you would notice while those in the Presidential campaign did, but that says more about your personal media consumption than anything else.
First I ever heard of his political views was when he ran for President.
If he'd been open and up-front about those views, I'm sure they would have been opposed, had anyone bothered to take him seriously. Though more likely he would have just been written off as some rich crank, much as he was at the start of his campaign.
The serious political opposition to him really mounted as his chances at getting political power increased. That, combined with people starting to realize what he and his biggest fans (Neo-Nazis and other white nationalists) stood for was why he's been called a racist now as opposed to when he was just another business man with his politics in the closet.
I don't think it's a good idea to categorize Trump supporters as uneducated hicks. Liberals love to do that to gun owners, but it is farthest from the truth--both groups are a massive cross section of society that cuts across every socioeconomic status and every education level. To think otherwise is a huge mistake and a huge generalization.
>"Everybody worked for Trump. He couldn’t lose."
Hillary comfortably won the popular vote, and something like 100,000 voters in strategic states were what swung the election to Trump. "He couldn't lose" is a lot different from "he could win", and is a ridiculously strong claim that nobody who believes in evidence and logic-based reasoning would have made previous to Nov. 9th.
Would that mean there was no way Trump could have lost? No.
It is unclear how using counties as a metric is useful. It would be quite significant if Clinton won the equivalent of the population of LA county over Trump.
The popular vote is a relevant example of how the contest was not inevitable. More people voted for Hillary than for Trump... that's not what wins the election, but it's not meaningless to a democratic society. Counties, however, are completely arbitrary. Should winning the least populous 51% of counties matter to anyone?
You're using it as a convenient way to sidestep the obvious implication of losing the popular vote.
I'd be very careful about that "won the popular vote" meme. First off, it isn't relevant. Second off, if people who were ineligible to vote, aka illegal immigrants and felons (and maybe dead people, too) then what we know about the popular vote is a fallacy, too.
There are lots of other sources with more details, but all of them are considered now "trump shills", so I won't post them, last time I accidentally mentioned one of them (I didn't even knew the place was right-wing, it was the first time I read the site, and happened to be useful for an argument) I got lots of flak and stress.
Which is Not Even Wrong, for it implies the unknowable counterfactual that if Trump had been running a campaign for the popular vote, he wouldn't have won that. E.g. lots of people don't bother to vote when they're in "enemy territory" and they know their vote won't count for anything.
You can't take a situation based on X strategy, and then change the rules to Y strategy after the game has been played by X, and make anything more of it than a silly rhetorical point.
Are you arguing that there's no way Trump could have lost and there was incontrovertible evidence of that prior to election day or that Clinton did not win the popular vote by a wide margin? That's the extent of what I've contended here.
I don't care to discuss abstract hypotheticals, or whether this means Trump is wonderful or not.
Unless you're disputing in a roundabout way what I've presented there's no reason to be engaging in whatever you're doing.
Oh, perhaps it was because they claimed Obama wasn't born in the US. Or because they denied global warming. Or because they hate Mexicans and Muslims.
In short, because they bought in to the steaming pile of bullshit that is the right wing media echo chamber.
When they think like children, talk like children, and act like children, they shouldn't be surprised that they're treated like children.