[lsc]

If it really is about economic pain for the poor, why did they vote in someone who promised to cut taxes for the rich and benefits for the poor?

That sounds like the action of a people who think they are doing fine; people who don't think they need help.

[smashingfiasco]

I can’t answer for everyone in the Midwest, but from what I saw, no one trusted HRC. And if you were paying attention, it was revealed that politics “is like making suasage,” and that “you have to have a public position and a private position.”

And yes, I still hear a lot of resentment about NAFTA, which is strongly associated with the first Clinton administration. No one trusts that family. The people in this region called BS, not because they’re racist and uneducated, but because they feel that they were betrayed before. When the coasts shouted “racists” at them, it made everyone double-down in their position.

Meanwhile, DJT basically steals the Obama-era democratic platform, makes a stop in their little main-street town and promises the impossible.

Someone else might have a different experience, but this is what I saw and heard.

——

To be clear, midwesterners weren’t voting based on tax policy as you suggest, this was about trust, betrayal and vengeance.

[lsc]

>To be clear, midwesterners weren’t voting based on tax policy as you suggest, this was about trust, betrayal and vengeance.

That's consistent... but I don't really see how it's actionable. There's a lot of talk on the left about what we can do to help the midwest financially, but as you say, it's not about money.

If you had the ear of someone who mattered in the 'blue state' establishment, what would you tell them if they asked "What can the blue states do to help?"