Koch Brothers believe Trump Presidency could lead to Far Left populism

[NeederNodder]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tariniparti/koch-network-focuses-on-understanding-trump-voters?utm_term=.koDMJnBJK1

[DPKdebator]

Sure.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I wish.

[Stranger in a strange land]

No Sh*t guys. This is the inevitable consequence of what's been going on on the Right since 2009 or so.

[Middle-aged Europe]

This is kind of the best case scenario. Don't believe in it though.

[Vosem]

They are correct, and this is why right-wing opposition to Trump was (and remains) so important. The actual rise of far-left populism to power is still evitable, but we aren't taking the correct steps to avoid it.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The actual way to prevent this would not be through following Kochonomics.

[Mr. Smith]

Well duh!

Populism was always going to be the answer, same way minimal government psuedo-intellectualism was the inevitable result no matter who won 1976.

And just like '76, the winner of it was bound to barely win and have a highly disagreeable Congress to reckon with.

No even going into the near precision with the way the primaries played out on both sides.

[Kingpoleon]

Well duh!

Populism was always going to be the answer, same way minimal government psuedo-intellectualism was the inevitable result no matter who won 1976.

Gerald Ford was many things, but an elitist intellectual is not one of them.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Well duh!

Populism was always going to be the answer, same way minimal government psuedo-intellectualism was the inevitable result no matter who won 1976.

Gerald Ford was many things, but an elitist intellectual is not one of them.

-He won the college-educated by a lot.

[Lief 🗽]

Far left populism is not really a good thing, but it is very important that the fat rich constantly live in fear of the guillotine. There needs to be an equilibrium. In the last few decades, the rich have lived carefree, comfortable lives; they need to FEAR again. That impulse will help fix things.

[Kingpoleon]

Well duh!

Populism was always going to be the answer, same way minimal government psuedo-intellectualism was the inevitable result no matter who won 1976.

Gerald Ford was many things, but an elitist intellectual is not one of them.

-He won the college-educated by a lot.

Those with some college or a college degree went 52-48 Ford. Not "a lot". Furthermore, Ford's intellect was constantly ridiculed.

[The_Doctor]

They're not wrong. They're actually pretty prescient. If Trump fails (which I think he will) and there's no substantial change to the lives of the working class voters who backed him, they will choose another option. And a lot of them said many positive things about Bernie Sanders during the campaign. Take that hint as you will.

[White Trash]

Sure hope so.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Well duh!

Populism was always going to be the answer, same way minimal government psuedo-intellectualism was the inevitable result no matter who won 1976.

Gerald Ford was many things, but an elitist intellectual is not one of them.

-He won the college-educated by a lot.

Those with some college or a college degree went 52-48 Ford. Not "a lot". Furthermore, Ford's intellect was constantly ridiculed.

-Look at those with a college degree only. The margins must have been larger than that, simply judging by the counties Ford did best in. Nearly every newspaper in the country endorsed Ford. According to here:
http://themonkeycage.org/2012/02/zombie-politics-the-voting-behavior-of-white-working-class/
Carter performed worse than McGovern among the White college-educated. This does seem to be the case, judging by Ford's win in Washtenaw County, MI.

[RINO Tom]

Well duh!

Populism was always going to be the answer, same way minimal government psuedo-intellectualism was the inevitable result no matter who won 1976.

Gerald Ford was many things, but an elitist intellectual is not one of them.

-He won the college-educated by a lot.

And Trump won the wealthy and lost the poor, is he no longer a man of the people?

[Xing]

Well, they're not wrong. We're already starting to see the beginning of it.

[DPKdebator]

Well, they're not wrong. We're already starting to see the beginning of it.

I haven't really seen signs of left wing populism, what signifies it to you?

[Blackacre]

Well, they're not wrong. We're already starting to see the beginning of it.

I haven't really seen signs of left wing populism, what signifies it to you?

Bernie Sanders ring a bell?

[NOVA Green]

Far left populism is not really a good thing, but it is very important that the fat rich constantly live in fear of the guillotine paying higher taxes. There needs to be an equilibrium. In the last few decades, the rich have lived carefree, comfortable lives; they need to FEAR again expecting all of the benefits enjoyed by the New Deal and Great Society and wanting to enjoy the fruits of working class Americas labor, without having to pay their fair share of the ride. That impulse will help fix things, once the greedy Baby Boomer generation realizes that they can't have their cake and eat it too, and quite blaming everything on preceding and future generations as well as illegal immigrants.

Let me humbly rephrase the words from our great friend Comrade Lief....

Strikethroughs to indicate modification of the OP's comments, Bold to indicate where I inserted my own words as part of the OP's sentences, and Italics for the final part of my own add-on to the end of the OP's 4th sentence.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Well, they're not wrong. We're already starting to see the beginning of it.

I haven't really seen signs of left wing populism, what signifies it to you?

Where have you been under a rock? Sounds like something DWS would say condescendingly.

[🕴🏼Melior🕴🏼]

Well duh!

Populism was always going to be the answer, same way minimal government psuedo-intellectualism was the inevitable result no matter who won 1976.

Gerald Ford was many things, but an elitist intellectual is not one of them.

-He won the college-educated by a lot.

And Trump won the wealthy and lost the poor, is he no longer a man of the people?

According to exit polls, Trump won the $250k+ vote by 1%. Romney won it by 10% in 2012.

Also, exit polls are junk. They tend to be very inaccurate. Most national polls had Hillary ahead with the $250k+ group by a pretty solid margin.

The wealthiest communities in America (Greenwich, CT, Darien, CT, Atherton, CA, etc.) all OVERWHELMINGLY voted for Hillary (despite the fact that they voted for Romney in 2012).

To say that Trump won the wealthy is pretty false.

[Chief Justice Keef]

Well, they're not wrong. We're already starting to see the beginning of it.

I haven't really seen signs of left wing populism, what signifies it to you?

There was that whole "Bernie Sanders" thing back in the spring, but I don't know.

[RINO Tom]

Well duh!

Populism was always going to be the answer, same way minimal government psuedo-intellectualism was the inevitable result no matter who won 1976.

Gerald Ford was many things, but an elitist intellectual is not one of them.

-He won the college-educated by a lot.

And Trump won the wealthy and lost the poor, is he no longer a man of the people?

According to exit polls, Trump won the $250k+ vote by 1%. Romney won it by 10% in 2012.

Also, exit polls are junk. They tend to be very inaccurate. Most national polls had Hillary ahead with the $250k+ group by a pretty solid margin.

The wealthiest communities in America (Greenwich, CT, Darien, CT, Atherton, CA, etc.) all OVERWHELMINGLY voted for Hillary (despite the fact that they voted for Romney in 2012).

To say that Trump won the wealthy is pretty false.

"The exit polls don't indicate what I want them to, so I am going to choose to ignore them."

That's pretty much what you just said, buddy.  Also, winning wealthy counties (read: counties where the median income - which is a trash statistic, if not adjusted for cost of living and purchasing power) does NOT mean that you won the wealthiest voters in those counties.  There are still FAR more non-rich people in rich counties than there are rich people, you know.  If we controlled for cost of living and looked at ACTUAL affluence (ya know, how affluently you can afford to live, how much stuff you can buy, spending cash, etc.), Trump likely won this group by even more.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Well duh!

Populism was always going to be the answer, same way minimal government psuedo-intellectualism was the inevitable result no matter who won 1976.

Gerald Ford was many things, but an elitist intellectual is not one of them.

-He won the college-educated by a lot.

And Trump won the wealthy and lost the poor, is he no longer a man of the people?

According to exit polls, Trump won the $250k+ vote by 1%. Romney won it by 10% in 2012.

Also, exit polls are junk. They tend to be very inaccurate. Most national polls had Hillary ahead with the $250k+ group by a pretty solid margin.

The wealthiest communities in America (Greenwich, CT, Darien, CT, Atherton, CA, etc.) all OVERWHELMINGLY voted for Hillary (despite the fact that they voted for Romney in 2012).

To say that Trump won the wealthy is pretty false.

"The exit polls don't indicate what I want them to, so I am going to choose to ignore them."

That's pretty much what you just said, buddy.  Also, winning wealthy counties (read: counties where the median income - which is a trash statistic, if not adjusted for cost of living and purchasing power) does NOT mean that you won the wealthiest voters in those counties.  There are still FAR more non-rich people in rich counties than there are rich people, you know.  If we controlled for cost of living and looked at ACTUAL affluence (ya know, how affluently you can afford to live, how much stuff you can buy, spending cash, etc.), Trump likely won this group by even more.

-True, but by less than Mitt Romney.