How Clinton lost Michigan - and blew the election

[136or142]

1.Only now since the passage of Obamacare.

Hardly a programme associated with giving benefits particularly to black people. Quite unlike basically the entire of the Great Society and large parts of the New Deal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pop psychology nonsense, a vague allusion to 'THE POLLS' and questionable anecdotes. All of which point, isn't this absolutely remarkable?, to the reinforcement of a 'theory' that largely seems a lot like a doubling down of blatant class prejudice... classic!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So a cynical anecdote from a notorious cynic describing a political world that died long before most people on this forum were born? I am not impressed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Adopt that attitude further and the Democrats can look forward to losing many more elections to permatanned Reality TV Stars!

But this combination of Diversity Course Speak and actual Thatcherism is vomitous, although sadly typical on the American internet these days. This feels relevant...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

_{Richard Polenberg, One Nation Divisible: Class, Race and Ethnicity in the United States since 1938, (New York, 1980), pp. 226-7.}

The funny thing is that if you make it clear that you regard a certain section of society as being basically trash they tend not to vote for you in large numbers. Isn't that strange? Politics is about power, not patting yourself on the back.

1.Social security, medicare and medicaid were for the specific benefit of minorities? Maybe if seniors are counted as minorities.

The New Deal had a number of government jobs programs that specifically excluded minority hiring.

I assume you are trying to refer to the various Civil Rights Acts but none of them were social programs.


There were some programs to benefit the urban poor (far from all blacks, especially in the 1960s pre 'white flight') but they were and are small in cost compared to medicare and medicaid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty


2.http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/why-half-of-u-s-adults-no-longer-believe-in-the-american-dream/

"Nearly half of Americans who once believed in the American dream (defined as the belief that if you work hard, you’ll get ahead) think it no longer exists. Similarly, close to half of all Americans over 18 think their generation is better off financially than their children’s will be."


Poll reported on September 24, 2014

I can't be bothered to address the rest of your post as its pretty clear your knowledge of U.S politics wouldn't add anything to an empty coloring book.

However, you obviously believe you are superior enough, morally or otherwise, to believe you have the ability to comment like an expert even though you clearly know nothing or very little.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

They let the "she's inevitable" go to their head, and spent most of the campaign insulting those who didn't support her.

[136or142]

This pretty much confirms that article: http://adage.com/article/campaign-trail/states-where-trump-clinton-spending-most-on-advertising/306377/

While only Trump was advertising in Wisconsin and Michigan, Hillary Clinton was advertising in Texas and California! from October 21 through the election day.

Still, this seems to be thinking in hindsight.

[Shadows]

This isn't about a less than 1% loss. This was against freaking Trump, a sexual assaulter, a racist, a sexist who his own party disowned.

This was a race where MI, WI, PA should have been won by atleast 10-12%. Even if it was a 1% win, that doesn't change the narrative!

[Beet]

First of all, even though I live on the Coast I'm neither wealthy, nor even American, so I'm not a Coastal Elitist.

Wait, you're not even an American? How many Americans are even participating in this discussion?

[Meclazine for Israel]

First of all, even though I live on the Coast I'm neither wealthy, nor even American, so I'm not a Coastal Elitist.

Wait, you're not even an American? How many Americans are even participating in this discussion?

I am not American either, but i understood exactly what you wrote below the graph.

It certainly reads a lot clearer than the rest of the thread.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

What precisely was Clinton offering poor white voters in the Rust Belt exactly?

Clinton: Let's put the mines out of business
Trump: Jobs! Jobs!  Mexico! Jobs!

Guess what, kids, outsourcing is unpopular... which is why Obama ran against it in 2008 and then, in the best tradition of the Democratic party, did nothing

[Fuzzy Bear]

The election wasn't a referendum on the American Jobs Act or the Miners Protection Act. It was between Clinton and Trump. Clinton's case was that Trump shouldn't be president because he called a Hispanic lady fat. Maybe she should have campaigned more on jobs and health care for miners.

Post hoc.

Maybe that was your perception at the time, but it wasn't mine.  She campaigned on 'stronger together' which is an economic message of "America does best when everyone does well."

My perception of Trump's message was one of either "Because I'm so uniquely great I, and I alone, can fix your problems all by myself" which only a moron can believe or "You white working class people, unlike all other disaffected people, you're not to blame for your economic problems, but these scapegoats: Chinese workers, illegal aliens... are."  which only a genuinely deplorable person can support.

I get your point.  These hardworking people are suffering...   My point is you can't promise all things to all people and that those who do are lying.  And that these people, many of whom frequently said "at least Trump tells it like it is" were really saying "he tells me what I want to hear,  and even though, deep down, I know it's probably nonsense, I'm going to vote for it anyway."

And that was even quite a number of them recognized that he was completely unfit to be President and was almost certainly only running to further his own interests.

So, it was hardly a case of as bad as Trump is, I think Hillary Clinton will be even worse, it was a case of "Donald Trump is as bad as a person can be, but I'll still vote for him."

"Stronger Together" was a horsecrap slogan.  Why?  Because folks saw through it.

Someone who calls 25% of the population "deplorables" doesn't really believer AMERICA is "Stronger Together".  What she was saying is that the DEMOCRATIC PARTY is "Stronger Together" when Clintonistas and those Feeling the Bern stand together against the Trumpian Hordes.  That's the real meaning of that slogan, and I believe folks figured it out and were not impressed.

[Sumner 1868]

Adam T, do you know that had blacks voted as Democratic as they did in 2012 it would have kept MI/PA/WI in the Democratic column? Are black people therefore stupid and deplorable?

[136or142]

First of all, even though I live on the Coast I'm neither wealthy, nor even American, so I'm not a Coastal Elitist.

Wait, you're not even an American? How many Americans are even participating in this discussion?

I assumed you already knew that since you referred to me as a 'coastal elitist.'  Since you didn't even know where I lived, why did you assume I lived on a Coast? What sort of nonsense is that?

More importantly could you please define 'elitist' for me in terms of how you mean it here.

Of course, I prefer to assume you've just been trolling me all along, so, if so, you can obviously just disregard my questions.

[136or142]

The election wasn't a referendum on the American Jobs Act or the Miners Protection Act. It was between Clinton and Trump. Clinton's case was that Trump shouldn't be president because he called a Hispanic lady fat. Maybe she should have campaigned more on jobs and health care for miners.

Post hoc.

Maybe that was your perception at the time, but it wasn't mine.  She campaigned on 'stronger together' which is an economic message of "America does best when everyone does well."

My perception of Trump's message was one of either "Because I'm so uniquely great I, and I alone, can fix your problems all by myself" which only a moron can believe or "You white working class people, unlike all other disaffected people, you're not to blame for your economic problems, but these scapegoats: Chinese workers, illegal aliens... are."  which only a genuinely deplorable person can support.

I get your point.  These hardworking people are suffering...   My point is you can't promise all things to all people and that those who do are lying.  And that these people, many of whom frequently said "at least Trump tells it like it is" were really saying "he tells me what I want to hear,  and even though, deep down, I know it's probably nonsense, I'm going to vote for it anyway."

And that was even quite a number of them recognized that he was completely unfit to be President and was almost certainly only running to further his own interests.

So, it was hardly a case of as bad as Trump is, I think Hillary Clinton will be even worse, it was a case of "Donald Trump is as bad as a person can be, but I'll still vote for him."

"Stronger Together" was a horsecrap slogan.  Why?  Because folks saw through it.

Someone who calls 25% of the population "deplorables" doesn't really believer AMERICA is "Stronger Together".  What she was saying is that the DEMOCRATIC PARTY is "Stronger Together" when Clintonistas and those Feeling the Bern stand together against the Trumpian Hordes.  That's the real meaning of that slogan, and I believe folks figured it out and were not impressed.

Right, so Trump insults pretty much every group of people except for white males throughout the campaign but supposedly tells it like it is, but Hillary Clinton gives one insult (on several occasions) that is actually backed up by evidence, and you were so insulted it justified voting for Trump.

I thought part of this campaign was a backlash against the hypersensitive politically correct 'social justice warriors' but it seems you white working class redneck justice warriors are every bit as hyper sensitive and politically correct (or at least you are, but I know you're not the only one.)

With logic like that, I can understand why you are among the losers in the new(er) economy.  This new(er) economy requires intelligence far more than physical labor and you and the people who think like you are genuinely stupid.

And I don't need to hear the 'you won't win them over that way' nonsense.
1.I don't believe in pandering to anybody even if I actually thought it would work, which I know it won't anyway.

2.I write my own opinions and I'm not working for any party or beholden to any body.  If somebody reads my writings and resents all liberals or the Democratic Party for that, I won't take responsibility because anybody who thinks that way is also genuinely stupid.

3.As far as I'm concerned I'm genuinely telling you like it really is.  I'm not actually pandering to you while you believe he's telling it like it is because he's actually just insulting everybody other than you.

For anybody offended by my post here, if it makes you feel any better,  I assume some Trump voters are good people.

[136or142]

Adam T, do you know that had blacks voted as Democratic as they did in 2012 it would have kept MI/PA/WI in the Democratic column? Are black people therefore stupid and deplorable?

Not voting at all and actively voting for Donald Trump aren't the same thing.  So, what you wrote here makes no sense to me.

Also, Unless you have updated data based on county vote totals, the only numbers that I saw that black turnout was down was based on that one exit poll that looks to have been wrong on just about everything.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Let's dispel with the fiction that the Clinton campaign was centered on a positive economic message. It was not centered on a positive economic message.

Here are the top 10 ads broadcast in swing states. 6 by Clinton, 4 by Trump.

Of the 6, 4 are about how Donald Trump is dangerous.

Let's dispel with the fiction that the Clinton campaign was centered on a positive economic message. It was not centered on a positive economic message.

Of the two that are positive/not about Donald, 1 is an incredibly generic "Oh gosh, Hilldawg loves kids!" biographical ad. The other is in such generalities that it barely counts as anything. "Hilldawg wants opportunity for families! And college! Did we mention kids?"

Let's dispel with the fiction that the Clinton campaign was centered on a positive economic message. It was not centered on a positive economic message.

Let's dispel with the fiction that the Clinton campaign knew what it was doing. It had no idea what it was doing.

The fun thing about all of this is that most of what's proceeded has been an argument entirely orthogonal to what happened in the election. Adam T has sure had his jimmies rustled by white working class voters that voted against their own self interest *sips latte*, but the truth is that FAR more  voters, white, black, young, mostly poor didn't come out for Clinton (unlike 2012) than WWCs voted for Trump, because Clinton was fundamentally unable to make a winning coalition outside of the affluent coastal suburbs care about her campaign. The story of the election in the crucial states isn't a story of one single thing going wrong; Adam's right about that. It's a story of the Clinton campaign having a thousand paths to victory, and missing Every. Single. One.   

The Clinton campaign didn't inspire voters. It didn't persuade voters that mattered. In all of the states they lost that counted, their field operation either didn't exist (WI, MI), was mis-targeting voters (PA), or was an absolute shambles. Her biography of centrist elitism was the wrong message for the times. No one read her policy papers on her website,  as is good and proper, since jfc who does that? But the Clinton campaign seemed to think that that was enough, and focused on telling everyone that Donny was a bad, bad man. Which everyone knew already.

Let's dispel with the fiction that the Clinton campaign knew what it was doing. It had no idea what it was doing.

[136or142]

Let's dispel with the fiction that the Clinton campaign was centered on a positive economic message. It was not centered on a positive economic message.

Here are the top 10 ads broadcast in swing states. 6 by Clinton, 4 by Trump.

Of the 6, 4 are about how Donald Trump is dangerous.

Let's dispel with the fiction that the Clinton campaign was centered on a positive economic message. It was not centered on a positive economic message.

Of the two that are positive/not about Donald, 1 is an incredibly generic "Oh gosh, Hilldawg loves kids!" biographical ad. The other is in such generalities that it barely counts as anything. "Hilldawg wants opportunity for families! And college! Did we mention kids?"

Let's dispel with the fiction that the Clinton campaign was centered on a positive economic message. It was not centered on a positive economic message.

Let's dispel with the fiction that the Clinton campaign knew what it was doing. It had no idea what it was doing.

The fun thing about all of this is that most of what's proceeded has been an argument entirely orthogonal to what happened in the election. Adam T has sure had his jimmies rustled by white working class voters that voted against their own self interest *sips latte*, but the truth is that FAR more  voters, white, black, young, mostly poor didn't come out for Clinton (unlike 2012) than WWCs voted for Trump, because Clinton was fundamentally unable to make a winning coalition outside of the affluent coastal suburbs care about her campaign. The story of the election in the crucial states isn't a story of one single thing going wrong; Adam's right about that. It's a story of the Clinton campaign having a thousand paths to victory, and missing Every. Single. One.    

The Clinton campaign didn't inspire voters. It didn't persuade voters that mattered. In all of the states they lost that counted, their field operation either didn't exist (WI, MI), was mis-targeting voters (PA), or was an absolute shambles. Her biography of centrist elitism was the wrong message for the times. No one read her policy papers on her website,  as is good and proper, since jfc who does that? But the Clinton campaign seemed to think that that was enough, and focused on telling everyone that Donny was a bad, bad man. Which everyone knew already.

Let's dispel with the fiction that the Clinton campaign knew what it was doing. It had no idea what it was doing.

I agree with some of this and I disagree with some of this, all of which I've already commented on.

1.I agree that the Hillary Clinton campaign made mistakes in where to campaign in, and I showed that previously by posting the website that showed that the Clinton campaign did no advertisements in Michigan or Wisconsin after October 21.

2.I assume that it's true that Hillary Clinton did no advertisements on her economics policy.  Living next to Washington State, which isn't a swing state I didn't see a single advertisement except for the occasional advert from PACs that aired on CNN, which I mainly only watched when  I went to the dentist, however she did spell out in some detail her economic policy in campaign speeches, at her convention and during the debates.  So, while I agree with you that television advertisements is the best way to reach voters, she did make her case on economics in a number of venues.

3.I agree that Hillary Clinton did not get her vote out as well as Trump did, and that is true even though Donald Trump received the lowest share of the vote for any Republican nominee since 1996 except slightly for John McCain in 2008.  However, I think it's largely not true that these people didn't turn out to vote.  It seems a fair number of them voted for third party candidates and that, in rural areas and in small towns, a lot of working class Latinos voted for Trump.  I think especially a lot of young voters voted for Governor Johnson and a fair number of young voters who were eligible to vote for the first time this year voted for Trump.  

All of those things I've written on this website previously.


However, this is where I disagree with you completely:
1.If everybody knew that Donald Trump was bad, they also seemed to believe that Donald Trump was no worse than Hillary Clinton was.  I don't know how many times I heard or read that "Donald Trump is the crazy one while Hillary Clinton is the corrupt one."  If these people were rational and were informed as you seem to believe they were,  I don't know how they couldn't be aware of the incredible corruption of Donald Trump ranging from his engagement in pay to play business operations to Trump University to his Foundation that, unlike the Clinton Foundation, seems to be genuinely nothing but a fraudulent money laundering operation.

I've written previously that there are two possibilities here.
A.That Trump was a beneficiary of what the Simpsons had previously jokingly termed the "Three Stooges Effect"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmBj8r1-fDo

Which, in Trump's case, meant that there were so many horrible things that Trump has said and done that nobody could focus on a single thing long enough to remember them in any detail, unlike Hillary Clinton's damn emails, and they essentially all cancelled each other at.

That is essentially my explanation (and the only explanation I can see) for how any rational person could somehow believe that Hillary Clinton was more corrupt that Donald Trump.

The other alternative is that the Trump voters anyway were basically irrational. That irrespective of how ever much Hillary Clinton did or did not make a rational case for these people to vote for her that it didn't matter anyway because virtually all of these white working class voters voted for Donald Trump based on white identity politics (which they may possibly validly regard as a rational response) and that they weren't interested in hearing any alternative discussion.

That is essentially what Paul Simon wrote, also a long time ago:  "Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

Of course, any argument for or against is impossible to prove, but I suspect the number of white working class voters who actually would have voted for Hillary Clinton if she had campaigned more on an economic message aimed at them is so small that it wouldn't even have led her to win Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, as close as they were.

[136or142]

Oh yeah, one more thing:

You wrote:
"Her biography of centrist elitism was the wrong message for the times"

Could you please define for me what 'elitism' means in this context.

I damn well know, and i think you do to, that elite/elitism is a pejorative that all sorts of politicians (not just those on the right) routinely throw out against their opponents because they know that it's a term that gets many of their supporters riled up against their opponents.

The only thing elite means to me is the so called 1% (I prefer the phrase 'haves and have mores' and/or their political backers. )

The only thing elitism means to me that is different from the term of describing the actions of the genuine elitists is the idea that, for instance, American soccer fans aren't interested in American soccer via Major League Soccer because it's not 'elite' European soccer.  However, in this case, those Americans are referred to as 'snobs' as in "Euro snobs' and not as engaging in elitism.

As I also wrote previously, I think the idea that a person who thinks they have the right to tell other people who they can and can't marry is behaving far more like a genuine elitist and must think they're a pretty special person (as if they've been personally spoken to be G_d) than anything the
so-called 'Coastal liberal elitists' have ever thought or done.

So, I suspect her that you just threw in 'elitism' either genuinely without thinking and not meaning anything by it or you meant it as the meaningless pejorative that it actually is and I'd like you to show me that my thinking is wrong.

Of course, I can't obligate you to do anything, as I'm not part of the actual elite that can genuinely do that in some cases,  but I'll take your refusal/unwillingness to answer this as an indication that my thinking is correct.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

The idea that white working class voters backed Trump due to "white identity politics" makes no sense whatsoever because so many of them voted for a Black graduate of Harvard Law School who is a champagne sipping, latte liberal. The difference was that he actually made an effort to campaign on tangible policy issues, distanced himself from "special interest groups" (to his credit, Obama earnestly seemed to despise people like George Soros), actually campaigned on accomplishments, like rescuing the auto industry etc.

Maybe white working class voters backed Trump due to "white identity politics". Maybe they're racist. What history should teach you is that this shouldn't matter: the white working class was the bedrock of the Democratic Party from the 60s onward and backed stereotypically liberal candidates against Republicans time and time and time again. The Iron Range of Minnesota never budged in its support for people like McGovern and Humphrey and so on.

So yeah, I think you should pull your head of your rear end and realize that this is prejudice. Do you know who loved George H.W. Bush's blatant and disgusting race-baiting campaign? Affluent "moderates ". Do you know who voted for Dukakis regardless of the fact that he loved Willie Horton Negroes or whatever? A bunch of gun-toting hicks. I suspect that people like you only care about racism when it comes from those people and sounds like it's in the wrong tone but when it sounds respectable and is hidden, it's acceptable and okay.

edit: mostly I think it's wild that a bunch of idiots online think that the white working class is racist meme holds up when so many of these people voted for Obama twice. Maybe they're racist but it's good that Obama tricked racists into voting for him, proof that racism can be shallow and unimportant in the polling place. The less important that is in motivating people, the better. You don't want to encourage people to act on racism by daring them to act on it by scolding them. So dumb that I have to be punished for this mentality when it's white liberals who are promoting it.

[136or142]

The idea that white working class voters backed Trump due to "white identity politics" makes no sense whatsoever because so many of them voted for a Black graduate of Harvard Law School who is a champagne sipping, latte liberal. The difference was that he actually made an effort to campaign on tangible policy issues, distanced himself from "special interest groups" (to his credit, Obama earnestly seemed to despise people like George Soros), actually campaigned on accomplishments, like rescuing the auto industry etc.

Maybe white working class voters backed Trump due to "white identity politics". Maybe they're racist. What history should teach you is that this shouldn't matter: the white working class was the bedrock of the Democratic Party from the 60s onward and backed stereotypically liberal candidates against Republicans time and time and time again. The Iron Range of Minnesota never budged in its support for people like McGovern and Humphrey and so on.

So yeah, I think you should pull your head of your rear end and realize that this is prejudice. Do you know who loved George H.W. Bush's blatant and disgusting race-baiting campaign? Affluent "moderates ". Do you know who voted for Dukakis regardless of the fact that he loved Willie Horton Negroes or whatever? A bunch of gun-toting hicks. I suspect that people like you only care about racism when it comes from those people and sounds like it's in the wrong tone but when it sounds respectable and is hidden, it's acceptable and okay.

edit: mostly I think it's wild that a bunch of idiots online think that the white working class is racist meme holds up when so many of these people voted for Obama twice. Maybe they're racist but it's good that Obama tricked racists into voting for him, proof that racism can be shallow and unimportant in the polling place. The less important that is in motivating people, the better. You don't want to encourage people to act on racism by daring them to act on it by scolding them. So dumb that I have to be punished for this mentality when it's white liberals who are promoting it.

Part I

I don't agree the only areas where some working class whites abandoned the Democrats (or Hillary Clinton) was in the Upper Midwest and a few areas of the East.  Most working Class Whites had long deserted the Democrats in the South and in the Southern Midwest (except for parts of Ohio.)

I haven't seen the numbers of working class whites that voted for Hillary Clinton this election, but according to Nate Cohn from the exit polls only 25% of working class whites voted for Barack Obama in 2012 and he says that actually could be as high as 34%.  So, essentially at least 2/3 of working class whites didn't vote for Obama.  So, in fact, a large majority did not vote for Obama twice and likely a clear majority did not vote for Obama once.

I don't know how well George McGovern did with working class whites per se, but he won 1 state and 37.5% of the vote.  Hubert Humphrey likely would have lost a large share of working class whites to George Wallace were it not for his Vice Presidential Running Mate, Curtis LeMay's 'fiasco'

"When Wallace announced his selection in October 1968, a press conference was held that Wallace aide later referred to as a "fiasco". When LeMay was asked if nuclear weapons were necessary to win the war in Vietnam, he responded, "We can win this war without nuclear weapons". However, he then added, "But I have to say, we have a phobia about nuclear weapons. I think there may be times when it would be most efficient to use nuclear weapons".[citation needed] Wallace's staff began to consider LeMay to be "politically tone-deaf" and the former Air Force General did nothing to diminish the perception of extremism that some American voters had of the Wallace-LeMay ticket.[51]

The "bomb them back to the stone age" comment received significant publicity but General LeMay disclaimed the comment, saying in a later interview: “I never said we should bomb them back to the Stone Age. I said we had the capability to do it".[47][48]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay

Prior to that Wallace was polling as high as 30% in a number of Northern States.  You can't simply cherry pick one area of working class whites like the Iron Range and claim they represent all white working class voters

" The impact of the Wallace campaign was substantial, winning the electoral votes of several states in the Deep South. He appeared on the ballot in all fifty states, but not the District of Columbia. Although he did not come close to winning any states outside the South, Wallace was the most popular 1968 presidential candidate among young men.[49] Wallace also proved to be popular among blue-collar workers in the North and Midwest, and he took many votes which might have gone to Humphrey.[citation needed]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1968

And, it seems pretty clear that many people who voted for Wallace in 1968 voted for Nixon in 1972.

[Intell]

The idea that white working class voters backed Trump due to "white identity politics" makes no sense whatsoever because so many of them voted for a Black graduate of Harvard Law School who is a champagne sipping, latte liberal. The difference was that he actually made an effort to campaign on tangible policy issues, distanced himself from "special interest groups" (to his credit, Obama earnestly seemed to despise people like George Soros), actually campaigned on accomplishments, like rescuing the auto industry etc.

Maybe white working class voters backed Trump due to "white identity politics". Maybe they're racist. What history should teach you is that this shouldn't matter: the white working class was the bedrock of the Democratic Party from the 60s onward and backed stereotypically liberal candidates against Republicans time and time and time again. The Iron Range of Minnesota never budged in its support for people like McGovern and Humphrey and so on.

So yeah, I think you should pull your head of your rear end and realize that this is prejudice. Do you know who loved George H.W. Bush's blatant and disgusting race-baiting campaign? Affluent "moderates ". Do you know who voted for Dukakis regardless of the fact that he loved Willie Horton Negroes or whatever? A bunch of gun-toting hicks. I suspect that people like you only care about racism when it comes from those people and sounds like it's in the wrong tone but when it sounds respectable and is hidden, it's acceptable and okay.

edit: mostly I think it's wild that a bunch of idiots online think that the white working class is racist meme holds up when so many of these people voted for Obama twice. Maybe they're racist but it's good that Obama tricked racists into voting for him, proof that racism can be shallow and unimportant in the polling place. The less important that is in motivating people, the better. You don't want to encourage people to act on racism by daring them to act on it by scolding them. So dumb that I have to be punished for this mentality when it's white liberals who are promoting it.

Part I

I don't agree the only areas where some working class whites abandoned the Democrats (or Hillary Clinton) was in the Upper Midwest and a few areas of the East.  Most working Class Whites had long deserted the Democrats in the South and in the Southern Midwest (except for parts of Ohio.)

I haven't seen the numbers of working class whites that voted for Hillary Clinton this election, but according to Nate Cohn from the exit polls only 25% of working class whites voted for Barack Obama in 2012 and he says that actually could be as high as 34%.  So, essentially at least 2/3 of working class whites didn't vote for Obama.  So, in fact, a large majority did not vote for Obama twice and likely a clear majority did not vote for Obama once.

I don't know how well George McGovern did with working class whites per se, but he won 1 state and 37.5% of the vote.  Hubert Humphrey likely would have lost a large share of working class whites to George Wallace were it not for his Vice Presidential Running Mate, Curtis LeMay's 'fiasco'

"When Wallace announced his selection in October 1968, a press conference was held that Wallace aide later referred to as a "fiasco". When LeMay was asked if nuclear weapons were necessary to win the war in Vietnam, he responded, "We can win this war without nuclear weapons". However, he then added, "But I have to say, we have a phobia about nuclear weapons. I think there may be times when it would be most efficient to use nuclear weapons".[citation needed] Wallace's staff began to consider LeMay to be "politically tone-deaf" and the former Air Force General did nothing to diminish the perception of extremism that some American voters had of the Wallace-LeMay ticket.[51]

The "bomb them back to the stone age" comment received significant publicity but General LeMay disclaimed the comment, saying in a later interview: “I never said we should bomb them back to the Stone Age. I said we had the capability to do it".[47][48]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay

Prior to that Wallace was polling as high as 30% in a number of Northern States.  You can't simply cherry pick one area of working class whites like the Iron Range and claim they represent all white working class voters

" The impact of the Wallace campaign was substantial, winning the electoral votes of several states in the Deep South. He appeared on the ballot in all fifty states, but not the District of Columbia. Although he did not come close to winning any states outside the South, Wallace was the most popular 1968 presidential candidate among young men.[49] Wallace also proved to be popular among blue-collar workers in the North and Midwest, and he took many votes which might have gone to Humphrey.[citation needed]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1968

And, it seems pretty clear that many people who voted for Wallace in 1968 voted for Nixon in 1972.

No fycking way, you dense person.

[Intell]

No and No.

From Adam Griffin





For this one, the article the lowest percentile for the south, is anomally with <100 votes, county it after that.

White vote those making more than $50, 000.: RINOTom

In 2012,: RINOTom

Poorer-whites who are more working class, are more democratic:

From Antonio V





Another statistics, with different result by state, but similar conclusions, the working class was more democratic than average since this warped up election called 2016.

[136or142]

Part II

The thing is, I don't write comments that I can't back up, I just don't back every comment up because I think most of my posts are already too long.

Is it prejudice from me or are they prejudiced?

ttps://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/clinton-wasnt-wrong-about-the-deplorables-among-trumps-supporters/2016/09/12/93720264-7932-11e6-beac-57a4a412e93a_story.html?utm_term=.2b278c21cf5e

"Yes, half of Trump supporters are racist

The American National Election Studies, the long-running, extensive poll of American voters, asked voters in 2012 a basic test of prejudice: to rank black and white people on a scale from hardworking to lazy and from intelligent to unintelligent. The researchers found that 62 percent of white people gave black people a lower score in at least one of the attributes. This was a jump in prejudicial attitudes from 2008, when 45 percent of white people expressed negative stereotypes.

This question is a good indicator of how one votes: Republican Mitt Romney won 61 percent of those who expressed negative stereotypes. And, when the question was asked during the 2008 primaries, those with negative racial stereotypes consistently favored Republican candidates — any of them — over any Democratic candidate in hypothetical matchups.

Research by Washington Post pollsters and by University of California at Irvine political scientist Michael Tesler, among others, have found that Trump does best among Americans who express racial animus. Evidence indicates fear that white people are losing ground was the single greatest predictor of support for Trump — more, even, than economic anxiety."

I should also point out that, although I can't find it on the list, I'm pretty sure your view that since white working class voters voted for non racist Democrats in the past that means white working class voters can't be racist now is a logical fallacy.

What might have changed.  Again, these are things that I've written on before:

1.White working class voters feel more threatened now (identity politics) with the increase in the minority population in the United States.

2.White working class voters (not all of them of course) don't mind being economically disenfranchised so much as long as they know that some other group is more disenfranchised than they are.  I quoted    President Lyndon Johnson on that earlier, but there is also this:

http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/13/13848794/kentucky-obamacare-trump

"Many expressed frustration that Obamacare plans cost way too much, that premiums and deductibles had spiraled out of control. And part of their anger was wrapped up in the idea that other people were getting even better, even cheaper benefits — and those other people did not deserve the help."

Maybe there is racism there, maybe not, but it certainly backs up President Johnson:
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

I think in the second sentence Johnson was indicated it didn't have to be visible minorities they had to look down on.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

jesus christ adam, you can't blame the electorate for when you lose.

[Intell]

Part II

The thing is, I don't write comments that I can't back up, I just don't back every comment up because I think most of my posts are already too long.

Is it prejudice from me or are they prejudiced?

ttps://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/clinton-wasnt-wrong-about-the-deplorables-among-trumps-supporters/2016/09/12/93720264-7932-11e6-beac-57a4a412e93a_story.html?utm_term=.2b278c21cf5e

"Yes, half of Trump supporters are racist

The American National Election Studies, the long-running, extensive poll of American voters, asked voters in 2012 a basic test of prejudice: to rank black and white people on a scale from hardworking to lazy and from intelligent to unintelligent. The researchers found that 62 percent of white people gave black people a lower score in at least one of the attributes. This was a jump in prejudicial attitudes from 2008, when 45 percent of white people expressed negative stereotypes.

This question is a good indicator of how one votes: Republican Mitt Romney won 61 percent of those who expressed negative stereotypes. And, when the question was asked during the 2008 primaries, those with negative racial stereotypes consistently favored Republican candidates — any of them — over any Democratic candidate in hypothetical matchups.

Research by Washington Post pollsters and by University of California at Irvine political scientist Michael Tesler, among others, have found that Trump does best among Americans who express racial animus. Evidence indicates fear that white people are losing ground was the single greatest predictor of support for Trump — more, even, than economic anxiety."

I should also point out that, although I can't find it on the list, I'm pretty sure your view that since white working class voters voted for non racist Democrats in the past that means white working class voters can't be racist now is a logical fallacy.

What might have changed.  Again, these are things that I've written on before:

1.White working class voters feel more threatened now (identity politics) with the increase in the minority population in the United States.

2.White working class voters (not all of them of course) don't mind being economically disenfranchised so much as long as they know that some other group is more disenfranchised than they are.  I quoted    President Lyndon Johnson on that earlier, but there is also this:

http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/13/13848794/kentucky-obamacare-trump

"Many expressed frustration that Obamacare plans cost way too much, that premiums and deductibles had spiraled out of control. And part of their anger was wrapped up in the idea that other people were getting even better, even cheaper benefits — and those other people did not deserve the help."

Maybe there is racism there, maybe not, but it certainly backs up President Johnson:
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

I think in the second sentence Johnson was indicated it didn't have to be visible minorities they had to look down on.

Just because President Johnson said it doesn't mean it's fycking right, jesus christ.

[136or142]

No and No.

Your graph on 2008 may be correct that Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain essentially split the white working class vote in that election.

However, for 2012, largely the same numbers as the Nate Cohn article (I don't know where he got his 25% figure from that he claimed is false in the first place:

Race, on the other hand, makes a huge difference in how people vote.  Nonwhites (Black, Hispanic/Latino, Asian and Other) voted a little more than 80% for Obama while only 39% of whites did that – a difference of more than 40 percentage points.  Both the middle class and the working class gave Obama slight majorities based primarily on nonwhite voters who offset his 20-point loss among whites.
Among whites, the white working class is far from unique in giving Mitt Romney substantial majorities.  Nationally, working-class whites gave Obama only 36% of their vote

https://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2013/01/14/the-white-vote-in-2012-the-obama-coalition/

I mentioned Ohio as a South Midwestern State where working class whites deserted Hillary Clinton, I should also have mentioned Iowa.

[136or142]

Just because President Johnson said it doesn't mean it's fycking right, jesus christ.

Of course not, that's why I posted the link to that article.  However, just because you say that President Johnson might not be right doesn't make you right.

Are you actually a Fidel Castro supporter?

[136or142]

jesus christ adam, you can't blame the electorate for when you lose.

1.I didn't run in this election (or in any election) I personally didn't lose anything.  I'm just commenting on the results.

2.Your statement is normative. The first thing I learned in economics class about normative statements was simply to reply "I can't? Why can't I?"