Was the Hillary vote more motivated by culture or economics?

[mieastwick]

This question has been haunting - and dividing - the Republican Party for months. The answer to it will determine what the future of American politics will be, in which direction the two parties will go, and to whom Republicans must appeal in 2018 and beyond. It is also a major division between the more right-wing/Capitalistic aspect of the right and the more center-right/Moderate aspect of the right which disagree over the motivation behind the Hillary vote.

If the right-wing/Capitalistic side is correct, then Hillary voters, especially Romney-Hillary voters, were motivated more by economic issues. Perhaps they were also bigoted, but if the Republicans offered an economic agenda that appealed to their financial self-interest, they would have voted Republican instead. However, Clinton won their vote and Trump lost it, either to Clinton or to abstention, due to their economic messages. On that basis, the Republican Party must adopt a right-wing economic program, downplay aspects of its "identity politics," and pursue an agenda that will appeal to undisaffected White, college-educated voters. It would explain the allegation of Hillary voters as motivated more by anti-white racism as a deflection employed by the moderate establishment to secure their pro-egalitarian financial interests and that the rise of the far-left stems from the Right's failure to adopt a sufficiently right-wing economic agenda.

If the center-right/Moderate side is correct, then Hillary voters, especially Romney-Hillary voters, were more motivated by social/cultural issues. Perhaps they were also financially satisfied, but even if the Republicans offered an economic agenda that appealed to their financial self-interest, they would have voted Democrat regardless. However, Clinton won their vote and Trump lost it, either to Clinton or abstention, due to their social/cultural messages. On that basis, the Republican Party must emphasize their commitment to opposition to minority set-asides, opposition to globalization, and pursue an agenda that will appeal to moderate White, non-college-educated voters.

So, which side has the most compelling argument for it? Which side has the most substantive empirical data? Which side do you believe is more accurate?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

human decency

[Kingpoleon]

This question has been haunting - and dividing - the Republican Party for months. The answer to it will determine what the future of American politics will be, in which direction the two parties will go, and to whom Republicans must appeal in 2018 and beyond. It is also a major division between the more right-wing/Capitalistic aspect of the right and the more center-right/Moderate aspect of the right which disagree over the motivation behind the Hillary vote.

If the right-wing/Capitalistic side is correct, then Hillary voters, especially Romney-Hillary voters, were motivated more by economic issues. Perhaps they were also bigoted, but if the Republicans offered an economic agenda that appealed to their financial self-interest, they would have voted Republican instead. However, Clinton won their vote and Trump lost it, either to Clinton or to abstention, due to their economic messages. On that basis, the Republican Party must adopt a right-wing economic program, downplay aspects of its "identity politics," and pursue an agenda that will appeal to undisaffected White, college-educated voters. It would explain the allegation of Hillary voters as motivated more by anti-white racism as a deflection employed by the moderate establishment to secure their pro-egalitarian financial interests and that the rise of the far-left stems from the Right's failure to adopt a sufficiently right-wing economic agenda.

If the center-right/Moderate side is correct, then Hillary voters, especially Romney-Hillary voters, were more motivated by social/cultural issues. Perhaps they were also financially satisfied, but even if the Republicans offered an economic agenda that appealed to their financial self-interest, they would have voted Democrat regardless. However, Clinton won their vote and Trump lost it, either to Clinton or abstention, due to their social/cultural messages. On that basis, the Republican Party must emphasize their commitment to opposition to minority set-asides, opposition to globalization, and pursue an agenda that will appeal to moderate White, non-college-educated voters.

So, which side has the most compelling argument for it? Which side has the most substantive empirical data? Which side do you believe is more accurate?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What does "undisaffected" mean? Isn't that an effective double negative?

[Bismarck]

Social issues/identity politics, plus dislike of Trump.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It was one of the least issue based campaigns ever. To the extent that it was even about issues, social issues.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Both campaigns were almost solely culture-driven, which is part but not all of what made this election so infuriating throughout. Cross-posted in the Trump thread.

[mieastwick]

The right-wing/Capitalistic strategy may not work well at all for the Republicans in America, but it is no doubt a very, very effective strategy for the National Front in France.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Hillary did talk about economics quite a lot at rallies. She certainly wasn't the block of "identity politics" that people say she was.