The big myth about the election was that economic suffering drove most of Trump's base

[Jhhnn]

Lost by winning? Did Hillary Clinton pull an Obi Wan Kenobi and proclaim “if you strike me down I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine” or something? It’s hard to say GOP list by winning when they hold POTUS and both houses or Congress.

Yep. And they're taking this opportunity to loot the Treasury, slash beneficial social programs & roll back consumer protections. When it's all said & done the people who voted for them will mostly be worse off, not better. Technological progress is relentless with less & less human labor per unit of output needed all the time. The movers & shakers of Capitalism need us less & less all the time. That's reflected in the very strong shift of income to the top we've experienced since 1980.

Still think it'll trickle down? When did it ever?

 

[Greenman]

Let me guess, you are the arbiter of what's being molded to fit a narrative.

Only when it's obvious.

 

[Amused]

Only when it's obvious.

Or projection.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Lost by winning? Did Hillary Clinton pull an Obi Wan Kenobi and proclaim “if you strike me down I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine” or something? It’s hard to say GOP list by winning when they hold POTUS and both houses or Congress.

Getting elected != getting useful crap done.

But sure, let's go back to arguing about the ACA and fake tax reform.

 

[glenn1]

Getting elected != getting useful crap done.

But sure, let's go back to arguing about the ACA and fake tax reform.

Trump seems to be undoing pretty much everything done by Obama, so I guess your side losing means you don't think maintaining that Obama stuff was "useful crap" either.

 

[ivwshane]

Trump seems to be undoing pretty much everything done by Obama, so I guess your side losing means you don't think maintaining that Obama stuff was "useful crap" either.

The key word there is "seems". Useful idiots such as yourself believe it, those that are actually paying attention know its bullshit.

 

[Noah Abrams]

Real socialism as a term in the context I expressed it is that socialism that would exist if the altered reality notions of what socialism is imagined to be were to cease to exist. If there is a real socialism it would be that which is when all the bull shit we have learned isn't. Thus, you are as qualified to answer the question as I am. Equally, any answer I gave would be useless if you still held to a bull shit definition. I would just look like I didn't know what I was talking about. Likewise, if you do figure it out it may be that I won't be able to follow your answer owing to some bullshit belief I still have.

I get the gist of what you are saying, and I suppose that holds true for anything not just socialism. So are all conversations between people who hold divergent views just as futile as those conversations between people of similar views?

 

[HomerJS]

That must be it.
Pretty shrewd of Trump to brainwash all those people. Pity Hillary couldn't pull it off.

Hillary didn't have that extra soft clay to work with. Only a soft brain can listen to Trump accuse Hillary of being crooked and a liar, exceed her at these traits by 3x (at minimum the lying part as documented) and believe Trump.

And for the record Hilary was not a good candidate. She's always been better at doing the job then running for it.

 

[Jhhnn]

Getting elected != getting useful crap done.

But sure, let's go back to arguing about the ACA and fake tax reform.

Having the GOP's wealthiest contributors loot the Treasury is quite useful to them... but only in an abstract way. More money won't change their lifestyles at all, just the numbers on the balance sheet.

 

[Noah Abrams]

And for the record Hilary was not a good candidate. She's always been better at doing the job then running for it.

Or you talking about the 90s health care debacle or Libya?

 

[HomerJS]

Or you talking about the 90s health care debacle or Libya?

Even Republicans said she was a good and hard working Senator.

She's also done far better then Trump.

 

[Jhhnn]

That must be it.
Pretty shrewd of Trump to brainwash all those people. Pity Hillary couldn't pull it off.

You obviously said more than you know. Trump was right when he said he could shoot somebody.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Trump seems to be undoing pretty much everything done by Obama, so I guess your side losing means you don't think maintaining that Obama stuff was "useful crap" either.

Useful crap like the great economy Trump inherited? The ACA? GM bailout? Killing Osama Bin Laden? Etc etc etc? Like a brown man was President for 8 years and most people liked him unlike this sorry assed orange haired excuse for a human being named Donald?

I don't have a side chump. Oh wait you meant the side of sane thoughtful and intelligent.

True, the very opposite of the Snowtrumpians and this wannabe autocratic idiot President who's lies are only exceeded by his ego.

Enjoy your white nationalist revival be while it lasts. It sure as he'll ain't accomplishing anything meaningful.

Other than proving that yes, any idiot can become President, even with a minority of the vote.

 

[Moonbeam]

I get the gist of what you are saying, and I suppose that holds true for anything not just socialism. So are all conversations between people who hold divergent views just as futile as those conversations between people of similar views?

First off it seems to me you ask interesting questions, ones that would be present for anybody seriously considering the implications of what I have suggested, it seems to me.

I start with the assumption that the answers to various problems and issues are not all the same in the sense that some will apply better than others. The first issue to understand then is the openness on each end. If a person with a less valid understanding has a high degree of need not to admit there nay be answers out there better than his or hers, that person will likely have closed ears, closed ears even to having closed ears. In such a case no real change in understanding for that person is possible. “A fool convinced against his wii is of the same opinion still.” Some sort of tangential experiences will have to happen to such a person to shock them out of that state.

So there must be some sort of element of trust and willingness or trust in a dialogue if a person is to acquire better thinking. My teacher told me if I could really trust him I would have arrived at the goal. When you know people and are sincere in a willingness to take risk, to expose yourself to what they may know that you do not, it may be because you instinctually feel they are operating on a higher plane than you are. Then, one can look at all the times in ones life when one hears utter nonsense fron others too young to have real experience of things you have eprerienced that tell you they are talking nonsense. Clear thinging on this will tell you the same thing must apply to you.

I could probably go on but will finish but saying I don’t see communication as futile. Additionally my experience of learning has been more about dumping what I thought I knew rather than adding to it.

 

[Jaskalas]

Instead, Democrats should be basing their 2020 election strategy on what is actually true.
A just-published study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by the political scientist Diana Mutz found that white, Christian, male voters were attracted to Trump out of fear that their social status keeps dwindling. It was, in fact, Trump who was focused on identity politics, not simply the Democrats.

Jesus, that's a loaded imposition of !@#$ over what would be a very interesting topic.

First and foremost, the "base" did not win the election. That's why he lost the popular vote. The narrow margin of voters in states that swung red did. And those were in very particular regions where economic opportunity is sliding down the hole. Throw our trickle down abyss on top of INCUMBENT Democrats claiming victory over the economy, telling us to celebrate Wall Street's numbers. Celebrate unemployment numbers. Hurrah Hurrah Hurrah!!! While the working class are feeling death swoop down and descending upon them.

The message was the status quo, everything's fine, here's a relic from the 90s whose family gave you NAFTA. Be happy!

Second, yes a lot of folks will talk about scapegoats. Did you stop to think why they need someone to blame? To blame for what? Their suffering. Why do they suffer? TRICKLE DOWN MO!@#% !@#$%^!!! /Sam the Man 'Jackson.

Third, yes he used scapegoats, but that's something that's all too common to really finger. Oh he said it louder. Does not change the part where he talked about NAFTA, and China up to the point of promising trade wars. Plus as the opposition party trying to claim the White House from a Democrat admin, Trump got to talk down the economy. Everything circles back to that.

Fourth, if not me, listen to Uncle Joe.

"God willing we're going to win this, but there's a lot of people who are going to vote for Donald Trump," Biden told the crowd. "We've got to figure out why. What is eating at them? Some of it will be unacceptable. But some of it will be about hard truths about our country and about our economy. A lot of people do feel left out."

You need to stop and disown the hate filled rhetoric of Agent Orange and his regressive ilk. Where it is claimed there's nothing but evil on the other side. Where identity and racism are the only things in existence. They are not. But if one wants to scream until it becomes so, that is entirely within our power. When the political message is filled by "us vs them" rhetoric, then it truly is a self fulfilling prophecy. My point is that Democrats will find nothing but violence and ruin down that path.

I'd beg you to tread carefully, but that wouldn't be enough. We need not tread at all and catch ourselves before we declare war.

 

[qliveur]

Or projection.

Like a Western man believing that Western society is a "rape culture?"

Sheer projection if I've ever seen it.

 

[pmv]

Yes, the Democratic Party should stop with the identity politics and concentrate on the serious issues that matter. The ones that concern Caucasians.

I'm never clear what people mean by 'identity politics'.

And I don't believe things like access to health care or decent pay or job security only matter to 'caucasians'.

And don't the non-caucasians outside the US consider 'not being bombed to bits' to be an issue that concerns them?

I can argue both ways about this, which is a horribly weak position to find oneself in.

But Hillary was hardly a radical even if only considering 'social' issues - her stance on gay marriage, for example, flip-flopped repeatedly over a long period.

If 'identity politics' means only considering the physical/demographic characteristics of a politician rather than their record and policies, or if it means leaving everything pretty-much unchanged bar some quotas here and a little bit of redistribution there (as long as they don't threaten the position of wealthy liberals), then I'm against it. If it means 'acknowledging the importance of race and gender as independent political and structural issues' then I'm for it.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm never clear what people mean by 'identity politics'.

And I don't believe things like access to health care or decent pay or job security only matter to 'caucasians'.

And don't the non-caucasians outside the US consider 'not being bombed to bits' to be an issue that concerns them?

I can argue both ways about this, which is a horribly weak position to find oneself in.

But Hillary was hardly a radical even if only considering 'social' issues - her stance on gay marriage, for example, flip-flopped repeatedly over a long period.

If 'identity politics' means only considering the physical/demographic characteristics of a politician rather than their record and policies, or if it means leaving everything pretty-much unchanged bar some quotas here and a little bit of redistribution there (as long as they don't threaten the position of wealthy liberals), then I'm against it. If it means 'acknowledging the importance of race and gender as independent political and structural issues' then I'm for it.

‘Identity politics’ means ‘policies that aren’t catered to white people’.

 

[glenn1]

‘Identity politics’ means ‘policies that aren’t catered to white people’.

Considering whites are about 70% of the population one would think most policies would reflect this. After all you're the one saying that elections should reflect the fact that blue cities hold a majority of the population thus your policy preferences should completely trump those of the backwards red states. So which is it, is democracy to serve the will of the majority or not, or does the minority have some sort of absolute veto over the will of the majority?

 

[fskimospy]

Considering whites are about 70% of the population one would think most policies would reflect this. After all you're the one saying that elections should reflect the fact that blue cities hold a majority of the population thus your policy preferences should completely trump those of the backwards red states. So which is it, is democracy to serve the will of the majority or not, or does the minority have some sort of absolute veto over the will of the majority?

Huh? Where did I say anything about what the right policy mix was? I was just stating the simple fact that when people make policies catering to white people that’s just considered ‘politics’. When you make policies that may not that’s ‘identity politics’.

All politics are actually identity politics it’s just that white people don’t like to admit it.

 

[Sunburn74]

Or you talking about the 90s health care debacle or Libya?

Yeah that debacle only resulted in universal coverage for children. What a disaster!

 

[Atreus21]

I've been trying to say this all along.

Race, bigotry, fear and xonophobia was the main driving factor behind his support.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/28/opinions/trump-base-economy-myth-opinion-zelizer/index.html

Democrats need to stop believing this myth about Trump's base

The big myth about the 2016 presidential election was that economic suffering drove most of Donald Trump's "base" directly into his hands in states such as Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. The story goes that while Democrats were tied in knots about identity politics, Trump's attacks on China, free trade and open-ended immigration appealed to struggling workers who believed he could bring back their jobs.

The problem with the narrative is that we keep learning it is not true.

Some Democrats have responded to the widely circulated misconception about why Clinton lost by insisting that the party needs to move away from identity politics -- issues revolving around gender equality and racial justice -- and focus in on economic issues.

Instead, Democrats should be basing their 2020 election strategy on what is actually true.
A just-published study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by the political scientist Diana Mutz found that white, Christian, male voters were attracted to Trump out of fear that their social status keeps dwindling. It was, in fact, Trump who was focused on identity politics, not simply the Democrats.

Mutz's research found that members of Trump's base believed they faced more discrimination as white males than most other groups, such as Muslims. "For the first time since Europeans arrived in this country, white Americans are being told that they will soon be a minority race," she writes.

To play off of Bill Clinton's 1992 famous campaign slogan, "It's the economy, Stupid," we might say: "It's the culture, Stupid."
Mutz's research offers a window into understanding why President Trump can promote a Reaganesque economic agenda that is so clearly at odds with his campaign promises.
While the President keeps talking about the common man and woman, most of his economic policies, such as his tax overhaul or financial deregulations, have aimed to provide relief to corporations, investors, and families in the upper income brackets. But it is key to understand that his legislative actions are happening simultaneously with his continued rhetoric -- attacks on immigrants, civil rights, gender equality, and anyone who dares to stand up for the ideas that he likes to deride as "political correctness" -- that secured the support of his base to begin with.

So, although these attacks are sometimes seen as a "distraction," they are the main show, as Mutz's research demonstrates -- and they seem to be working. The nation is in the middle of a battle over what this country is about. Trump's attacks on immigrants and other groups seem to sit well with white male voters who fear that other segments of society are gradually displacing them.

continued at link

Okay I'm going to respond before I read the post or the link.

It's because they're racist.

Correct?

 

[glenn1]

Okay I'm going to respond before I read the post or the link.

It's because they're racist.

Correct?

Sort of, it's imploring Dems to double down on the "identity politics" and talk more to red state whites about how it will be such a great thing when in a few decades the U.S. will be a majority minority country and the Dems can really be freed of the burden of caring about what those greedy racists think or want. It's kiind of like listening to teenagers, they want to trash the old white fogey parents in front of their friends to seem cool but still not alienate the old man enough that he gets kicked out of the house and can't rely on the parents to pay the bills anymore. Add in a dash of "Trump voters are too stupid to realize why they should vote for us instead" and that about sums it up.

 

[nickqt]

Sort of, it's imploring Dems to double down on the "identity politics" and talk more to red state whites about how it will be such a great thing when in a few decades the U.S. will be a majority minority country and the Dems can really be freed of the burden of caring about what those greedy racists think or want. It's kiind of like listening to teenagers, they want to trash the old white fogey parents in front of their friends to seem cool but still not alienate the old man enough that he gets kicked out of the house and can't rely on the parents to pay the bills anymore. Add in a dash of "Trump voters are too stupid to realize why they should vote for us instead" and that about sums it up.

And you clearly think its going to be a bad thing when "in a few decades the U.S. will be a majority minority country".

Why's that?

 

[mikeymikec]

Considering whites are about 70% of the population one would think most policies would reflect this. After all you're the one saying that elections should reflect the fact that blue cities hold a majority of the population thus your policy preferences should completely trump those of the backwards red states. So which is it, is democracy to serve the will of the majority or not, or does the minority have some sort of absolute veto over the will of the majority?

You have that already, it's called rich vs. poor. The idea that you're pro majority is laughable; you're pro you and yours, and that's it.