Are you shocked that Obama/Trump voters think Democrats favor the wealthy ?

[Shadows]

Why did so many voters who backed Barack Obama in 2012 switch to Donald Trump four years later, and what can be done to win them back?

Priorities USA, the super PAC conducted focus groups of Obama-Trump voters in Wisconsin and Michigan — in late January and polled some 800 Obama-Trump voters nationally at around the same time. The pollsters also conducted focus groups with so-called drop-off voters — people who voted for Obama in 2012 but didn’t vote in 2016 — in the same states and polled 800 drop-off voters nationally.

A sizable chunk of Obama-Trump voters — 30% — said their vote for Trump was more a vote against Clinton than a vote for Trump.

42% of Obama-Trump voters said congressional Democrats’ economic policies will favor the wealthy, vs. only 21% of them who said the same about Trump. (40% say that about congressional Republicans.)

A total of 77 percent of Obama-Trump voters said Trump’s policies will favor some mix of all other classes (middle class, poor, all equally), while a total of 58 percent said that about congressional Democrats.

In one, Obama-Trump voters were asked what Democrats stand for today and gave answers such as these: “The one percent.”  “The status quo.”  “They’re for the party. Themselves and the party.”
               
One woman, asked whether the Democratic Party is for people like her, flatly declared: “Nope.”

The polling also shows that, among the Obama-Trump voters, large percentages of the more cautious supporters of Trump are concerned that he will go through with deep cuts to social programs and the repeal of Obamacare.

“To win back cautious Trump supporters, we should tie Trump to GOP policies that put the interests of the wealthy/businesses before the middle class and programs they rely on,” the polling memo concludes. Cecil noted that winning back Obama-Trump voters would be key in 2018 to defending vulnerable Democratic senators and winning the many gubernatorial contests that are taking place in big swing states currently controlled by Republicans.

Source - Washington Post [/b]/why-did-trump-win-new-research-by-democrats-offers-a-worrisome-answer/

[Hindsight was 2020]

I remember Bill Maher talking about this poll saying "they literally believe in the opposite of reality" An I kinda agree I mean since 2010 the Tea Party has been openly promoting cut rich people's taxes while Obama and dems openly fought for things like raising the minimum wage. So while dems do need to fix its PR image this also shows the problem of how freakin uninformed the voting public can get

[Shadows]

I remember Bill Maher talking about this poll saying "they literally believe in the opposite of reality" An I kinda agree I mean since 2010 the Tea Party has been openly promoting cut rich people's taxes while Obama and dems openly fought for things like raising the minimum wage. So while dems do need to fix its PR image this also shows the problem of how freakin uninformed the voting public can get

Obama in the end didn't get much of a minimum wage increase. And this is not about PR but hard facts. Obama's reign was the worst when it came to income inequality, concentration of wealthy. Whether intended, unintended, whether due to inability to govern or obstructionism, Obama's economy tended to massively favor the wealthy & left everyone else out.










Obama's policies hasn't worked for the working & middle class but for the wealthy (what his intention be). Trump being a con-man & GOP being worse is a different debate here !

[Adam Griffin]

The growth of inequality was a side-effect of the result of the Bush Era's policies, with the beginning of Obama's term obviously being impacted entirely by the implosion that had begun under the previous administration. Obviously the wealthy were gonna score big in an economic collapse; they're the only ones who were in the position to take advantage of it.

This is even more obvious when you look at Obama's later years, where income growth across all income brackets resumed. Of course, all of those charts above conveniently cut off at 2011-2012.

But yes, voters are dumb and are while they were smart enough to punish the GOP for its failures in 06-08, they weren't smart enough to continue punishing them for the pain that ricocheted across the economy for years afterward. That failure on their part is why they're hurting so much today: had the GOP been completely shut out of government after 2010, they would have had no ability to obstruct reforms that would have lessened inequality and increased growth. Now the voters will get to feel that pain for a generation or more, since they handed the GOP a reapportionment cycle in 2010.

Whoever is in nominal power at any given point is who they blame, and there's very little that can be done to change that goldfish-like recollection/behavior.

[I Won - Get Over It]

[Shadows]

The growth of inequality was a side-effect of the result of the Bush Era's policies, with the beginning of Obama's term obviously being impacted entirely by the implosion that had begun under the previous administration. Obviously the wealthy were gonna score big in an economic collapse; they're the only ones who were in the position to take advantage of it.

This is even more obvious when you look at Obama's later years, where income growth across all income brackets resumed. Of course, all of those charts above conveniently cut off at 2011-2012.

But yes, voters are dumb and are while they were smart enough to punish the GOP for its failures in 06-08, they weren't smart enough to continue punishing them for the pain that ricocheted across the economy for years afterward. That failure on their part is why they're hurting so much today: had the GOP been completely shut out of government after 2010, they would have had no ability to obstruct reforms that would have lessened inequality and increased growth. Now the voters will get to feel that pain for a generation or more, since they handed the GOP a reapportionment cycle in 2010.

Whoever is in nominal power at any given point is who they blame, and there's very little that can be done to change that goldfish-like recollection/behavior.

That is actually not correct. Obama's 2nd term data (& there's some data there till 2015 odd) [& btw it takes time to analyze this data after a full term & it's not about leaving to make a distorted point] is as bad when it comes to income inequality, perhaps worse.







The data of Obama's 2nd term when it comes to income inequality is as bad, if not worse!

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

no, but i'm shocked that anybody thought that the republicans (including and especially little donny) were anything but magnitudes worse on this topic

[Wiz in Wis]

Obama's policies did not noticeably reduce income inequality, I think we can admit that. However, to be fair to Obama, considering he was handed the worst economy since the Great Depression, and only had a Dem Congress for two years, and passed the ACA and ARRA (burning time and political capital), I think the biggest criticism I have is "Why couldn't he have fixed all the problems, instead of just two of the most pressing"

In reality, the office of president is not in a good position to deal with long term trends without at least some strong support from Congress. He didn't have that for nearly long enough to make a dent in this issue. Neither did Clinton.

[JA]

Not only did the lower income groups, which shifted substantially to Trump in 2016, think Obama and the Democrats favored the wealthy, but apparently the wealthy thought so as well, based upon their voting habits.

[RINO Tom]

Not only did the lower income groups, which shifted substantially to Trump in 2016, think Obama and the Democrats favored the wealthy, but apparently the wealthy thought so as well, based upon their voting habits.

How things will go in the future is anyone's guess, but I know a lot of upper-income folks who usually vote Republican (and DID downballot) and didn't vote for Trump.  It is anecdotal, sure, but I think Democrats who are optimistic of these people eventually voting Democratic downballot are on a fool's errand.  With the cases I've seen, they see Trump as a fluke, and the next Republican will be "a normal Republican."  Could they be wrong?  Absolutely ... but they're definitely holding out, and this forum acts like they might not be.

[publicunofficial]

Neoliberalism DOES favor the wealthy so that makes sense.

[RINO Tom]

Neoliberalism DOES favor the wealthy so that makes sense.

And Republican politicians in Washington are demonstrably more likely to favor neoliberal policies than Democratic ones...?

[Technocracy Timmy]

Not only did the lower income groups, which shifted substantially to Trump in 2016, think Obama and the Democrats favored the wealthy, but apparently the wealthy thought so as well, based upon their voting habits.

How things will go in the future is anyone's guess, but I know a lot of upper-income folks who usually vote Republican (and DID downballot) and didn't vote for Trump.  It is anecdotal, sure, but I think Democrats who are optimistic of these people eventually voting Democratic downballot are on a fool's errand.  With the cases I've seen, they see Trump as a fluke, and the next Republican will be "a normal Republican."  Could they be wrong?  Absolutely ... but they're definitely holding out, and this forum acts like they might not be.

This was also my exact experience living in the upper income suburbs of Orange County with this demographic.

I think if 2020 is between President Pence and somebody like Warren/Franken/Brown then people's voting patterns will look very similar to 2000-2012. A Pence victory will basically rely on keeping sunbelt states R (which he can do by running more in line with Bush style compassionate conservatism) while also winning a few if not multiple rust belt states by being protectionist on trade.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Considering the 'progressive paradise' of California has more income inequality and poverty than Texas...its not hard to see why. Democrats are totally complacent on every level when they get in power

     Not only in power, but also in campaigning. Clinton barely made the case to working-class voters in the Midwest, but just expected them to be assured that she was still their champion. It should surprise nobody that they defected to a candidate who told them that he really was their champion.

[publicunofficial]

Neoliberalism DOES favor the wealthy so that makes sense.

And Republican politicians in Washington are demonstrably more likely to favor neoliberal policies than Democratic ones...?

"Neither of these people are going to help me, so I might as well vote for the one who'll shake things up"

[Jeffster]

It's become quite evident that the Democrats are the party of the neoliberal 1% who use identity politics to dupe their base, just as the Republicans were the party of the 1% who used religious issues to dupe their base. The fact that Trump was attacked by the establishment of both parties only helped his campaign. Now he's going back on a lot of promises and is surrounding himself with the same old establishment cronies, so Trump will most likely lose in 2020, but the Democrats better not think that means they are in the clear. There is still a lot of people who don't trust them to serve the interests of the working class anymore.

[Bismarck]

When the media repeats ad nauseum that "educated" people vote dem and "working class whites" vote GOP the people will eventually assume this to be true.

[RINO Tom]

It's become quite evident that the Democrats are the party of the neoliberal 1% who use identity politics to dupe their base, just as the Republicans were the party of the 1% who used religious issues to dupe their base. The fact that Trump was attacked by the establishment of both parties only helped his campaign. Now he's going back on a lot of promises and is surrounding himself with the same old establishment cronies, so Trump will most likely lose in 2020, but the Democrats better not think that means they are in the clear. There is still a lot of people who don't trust them to serve the interests of the working class anymore.

I mean, there has always been powerful factions in both parties who use some wedge issue to rile up people who ... well ... aren't powerful.  The Republican Party of the 1860s was just as beholden to the interests of Northern industrialists as the Democratic Party of the 1860s was to those of the slave power.

[Xing]

No, because they're not entirely wrong. The Republican agenda just favors the wealthy even more.

[Antonio the Sixth]

No, but I'd be upset if they didn't think the same of the Republican party.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Democrats showed with their last president that they really don't give a sh**t about income inequality.