[wilsonnb2]

> If liberals want to do anything about it they need to start actually giving a damn about America's poor and rapidly shrinking middle class in spite of the fact that they hold "backward and primitive" religious beliefs and are behind the times on social issues.

Hillary focused so much on the shrinking middle class and the poor during the 2016 election - I can't believe that anyone who has actually read her policy suggestions (or the policy suggestions of most other Democrats) can say that liberals don't give a damn about America's poor and shrinking middle class with a straight face.

Here's a selection of Hillary Clinton's policy positions from the 2016 election that would help the poor or the shrinking middle class. I understand that most of them aren't actual policy - however, if you go to the website where I pulled this from [1] you can find information about specific policy as well. I just went for the quotes here to make my point while keeping the comment brief.

> "Provide tax relief to working families from the rising costs they face"

> "Simplify and cut taxes for small businesses so they can hire and grow."

> "Make debt free college available to all Americans."

> "Hillary Clinton has announced a $275 billion, five-year plan to rebuild our infrastructure—and put Americans to work in the process."

> "Bring down out-of-pocket costs like copays and deductibles"

> "Reduce the cost of prescription drugs."

> "Fight for health insurance for the lowest-income Americans in every state by incentivizing states to expand Medicaid"

> "Expand access to rural Americans, who often have difficulty finding quality, affordable health care"

> "Remove barriers to sustainable homeownership."

> "Help responsible homeowners save for a down payment."

> "Defend the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau"

> "Strengthen American manufacturing with a $10 billion “Make it in America” plan."

> "Restore collective bargaining rights for unions and defend against partisan attacks on workers’ rights."

> "calling for a tax credit for businesses that hire apprentices, providing much needed on-the-job training—especially for young Americans."

[1] https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

[nopriorarrests]

Before diving into into policy details, you need to consider the bigger picture. Hillary was promising, generally speaking, third term of Obama.

He actually endorsed her, and there was little disagreement between the two.

If people were unhappy about two Obama terms (and it seems they were, in large enough numbers), it was a losing proposition from the start, and details about prescription drugs and tax cuts for small businesses just didn't mattered.

[mcphage]

> it seems they were, in large enough numbers

He got elected & re-elected by more votes than any other president in history; his popularity at the end of his tenure was very high. Hillary was unpopular, but not because of her similarity to Obama.

[wilsonnb2]

Obama's approval rating was above 50% for his last year in office, so I wouldn't say that people were particularly unhappy with him. Honestly, I think he could have won a 3rd term had he been legally allowed to run.

Hillary was unpopular in the voter's eyes for reasons that had little to do with Obama, although their association didn't really help her.

The fact that she was a woman, the fact that she was seen as a member of a political family (despite not coming from a multi-generation political family like the Kennedy or Bush families), the fact that the conservatives of this country had been running propaganda against her for almost 25 years, and the fact that she isn't particularly charismatic all hurt her in the public eye far more than her association with and similarity to Obama.

Which is deeply unfortunate, because none of those things have anything to do with what makes a good President. Perhaps someday we will realize that what makes a good candidate and what makes a good President are not the same.

[AnimalMuppet]

I have an extremely different impression of her campaign. If you look, not at the words on the platform, but at her campaign, it seemed very clear to me that she didn't care about working class people in flyover country. And I thought that was very strange, because that used to be the Democratic Party's core constituency.

I can't at the moment point you to documentation to back up my impression, but I'm pretty sure I wasn't alone in reaching that conclusion...

[dragonwriter]

> And I thought that was very strange, because that used to be the Democratic Party's core constituency.

Abandoning the working class and going all-in for neoliberal economics while retaining center-left social policies was the defining feature of Bill Clinton’s campaign and Presidency; that faction of the party was dominant from then on, though there have been signs of that dominance weakening over the last several years; it would be poetic if it's dominance (in Presidential terms) within the party began and ended with a Clinton.

[mcphage]

> If you look, not at the words on the platform, but at her campaign, it seemed very clear to me that she didn't care about working class people in flyover country

Interesting. What about her campaign gave you that impression?

[AnimalMuppet]

It may be the media's fault, but it seems like every time I heard her say something, it was about abortion, or LGBTQ issues, or race. It wasn't about the economy or jobs or even unions. So I concluded that the social issues were what she cared about, and the economy and workers were not.

[api]

An important point that I made above is that the time to do something about these issues was in the early 2000s. At this point the issue has been ignored for so long that people have lost all trust in the current establishment. They assume any promises from the current establishment are BS to get them to vote and will be forgotten right after the election.

If your house has been on fire forever and is burned down to cinders and the fire department finally shows up you're not going to thank them. You're going to yell at them and tear them a new one. You're probably so mad that you're going to tear the hose out of the hydrant and scream "let it f'ing burn you !#$!#$!#"

The house has been on fire since the mid-1970s. The roof collapsed in 2008.

I think it might aid understanding to look only at the Republican primary. Jeb Bush was the favorite, and Trump destroyed him. Jeb like Hillary was seen as establishment, a relative of two former presidents who also had an opportunity to put out the fire but did nothing.

Hillary Clinton is a part of the establishment. Her husband is a former president who presided over a booming decade when these problems could have been fixed but weren't.

Trump rightly or wrongly was perceived as being an outsider hostile to that establishment. Personally I see him as an opportunistic con man who saw a chance and took it, but it doesn't matter. The chance was there to be taken.

Edit: continuing with the fire metaphor: the roof collapsed in 2008 at the tail end of the Bush II administration. Obama sort of noticed and walked up and peed on it. The pee sizzled and steamed for a second and the flames shot higher.

[wilsonnb2]

> An important point that I made above is that the time to do something about these issues was in the early 2000s.

You do say that this. But, you also say that liberals "need to start actually giving a damn" about the poor and working class. I am refuting that point by showing that the liberal agenda is actually aimed at helping the middle class and the poor.

> What are the victims of these policies going to do? Nobody listens to them. Nobody cares. So in the end all they're left with is political revolts that most of them from what I've read understand are likely impotent, but at least somebody is discussing it. I'm a coastal "tech elite" and I'm writing this post and I wouldn't be if Hillary had won and Brexit hadn't passed. That's democracy I guess.

The problem with your assessment is not that the Trump situation could have been avoided by changing policy between the early 2000's and the 2016 election. I agree with that.

You assert that nobody is listening to or caring about these people, though, which is what I am refuting. The Democratic party is in favor of helping the poor and the middle class, and it has been for a long time.

> Obama sort of noticed and walked up and peed on it. The pee sizzled and steamed for a second and the flames shot higher.

Obama could have (and would have) done a lot more than "pee" on the flames, as you put it, had he not had to contend with an obstructionist Congress. There is only so much blame you can put on any President due to the limitations on their powers, and very little blame that can be put on Obama in my opinion.