GE Voter Study - Almost half of Trump voters are economically liberal - Effect ?

[Shadows]

Most Clinton supporters cluster in the lower-left corner: liberal on both economic and identity issues. Trump supporters cluster in the upper-middle: conservative on identity issues, and somewhat conservative on economic issues.4 Trump general election voters, however, are more widely dispersed on economic issues, ranging more broadly from liberal to conservative.

To simplify further, we can break the electorate into four types, based on their position in the four quadrants of Figure 2:

Liberal (44.6 percent): Lower left, liberal on both economic and identity issues
Populist (28.9 percent): Upper left, liberal on economic issues, conservative on identity issues
Conservative (22.7 percent): Upper right, conservative on both economic and identity issues
Libertarian (3.8 percent): Lower right, conservative on economics, liberal on identity issues


Not surprisingly, Clinton wins overwhelmingly in the liberal quadrant, and Trump wins overwhelmingly in the conservative quadrant. However, it is also worth noting that Clinton won only 83.4 percent of liberals, while Trump won 6.3 percent of liberals. By contrast, Trump won 90.2 percent of conservatives, and Clinton won almost no conservatives. While Clinton relied overwhelmingly on liberals, Trump’s general election support was split evenly between conservatives and populists—of the electorate, 20.4 percent were conservatives who supported Trump, 19.1 percent were populists who supported Trump. This mirrors a split in the Republican Party between populists and conservatives. They are generally unified on identity issues, and split on economic issues. Democrats, by contrast, are much more unified. Almost all of Clinton’s support came from the liberals.

Notably, Trump outperformed Clinton by about a 3-to-1 margin among the populists. Only 5.7 percent of the electorate were populists who supported Clinton. Another 4.3 percent was populists who supported somebody else. Also worth noting: libertarians split almost equally between Clinton, Trump, and others (mostly Johnson). They are, however, a very small proportion of the overall electorate.







https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publications/2016-elections/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond

Populist is a wrong term for economically liberal & socially conservative voters as there is no relation of populism to social conservatism.

But the war for the Republican party is largely due to ideological issues it seems. While social conservatism unites them, they are almost split down the middle in economic issues with almost half of Trump voters being economically liberal (not just trade, but very left wing ideas about Social Security, Entitlements, etc), some substantially economically liberal. Libertarians barely exist outside of cool internet forums.

What happens when the Democratic party actually runs a campaign focused on economically liberal policies, focused on helping the middle class & working class? This is why there is significant chance of a Democratic re-alignment because the voters are more aligned with the Democratic party on economics.

[JA]

So, a mere 26.5% of American voters could be described as fiscally conservative, yet the policy agenda of the Congressional GOP is largely driven by fiscal conservatism. That's exactly why so many Republican voters feel estranged from their party in Congress and have been motivated to challenge them in primaries. On economic issues, the party is simply too far-right for more than half of their own base. Yet, the ones with wealth and power in American society and especially Republican politics are to the right of most voters on fiscal policy, which entails entitlement cuts, upper-class tax cuts, and so on. If anyone wants to know why the GOP is in such an uproar, why they voted for Trump despite his boorishness, and why there's a looming threat for Republicans like Flake (who distinguished himself as a staunch fiscal conservative), this is your answer.

A similar issue has been ongoing in the Democratic Party as well and relating the GOP intraparty civil war to the more visible one, at least here on Atlas, might clarify the issue for people here. The populists in the GOP supported Trump because he seemingly defied the party establishment, the donor class, the lobbyists, and all others intertwined with the existing political elite that dominates Washington. They still side with Trump over and against Congressional Republicans because they represent sell-outs to the elite; this is demonstrated by their allying with Democrats in condemning Trump's behavior, which has earned them credibility and praise by the establishment, yet their unpopular fiscal agenda is nevertheless ignored and able to continue. They view it as a total disregard for their voter base. All they have to do is condemn Trump's behavior and earn speaking slots across media networks, which they happily embrace, then continue to vote for unpopular austerity measures and benefits for the wealthy while that same media turns a blind eye. Those populist voters consider that to be the swamp; those who pander to voters during the campaign, quickly defy their interests upon election, and get away with it all by employing correct speech in the eyes of an establishment that only demands correct speech.

Sanders voters have been similarly critical of the Democratic Party, complaining that it's wedded to corporate interests, controlled by the donor class, and too cozy with lobbyists. That's exactly the populist Republicans' complaints. And, similarly, the issue isn't really social issues - it's economic issues. The party isn't far enough to the left on economics for Sanders voters, which they largely attribute to dependency on and allegiance to corporate money. For these populist Republicans, the problem is similar. In summary: Populist Republicans and Sanders Democrats want to rein in the power and influence of big money, lobbyists, corporations, and the establishment; and attribute their party's tone deaf, too (relatively) right-wing economic policy agenda to the disproportionate power of the wealthy and special interests. That's why immigration is such a divisive issue within the GOP today; both sides want stronger border enforcement and security, yet the fiscal conservatives are more comfortable with low-skilled and large-scale immigration than populist conservatives, which the latter attribute to their elitism and disregard for the interests of the working and middle class (which is also manifest in their pursuit of entitlement cuts and tax reduction for the wealthy).

[Shadows]

So, a mere 26.5% of American voters could be described as fiscally conservative, yet the policy agenda of the Congressional GOP is largely driven by fiscal conservatism. That's exactly why so many Republican voters feel estranged from their party in Congress and have been motivated to challenge them in primaries. On economic issues, the party is simply too far-right for more than half of their own base. Yet, the ones with wealth and power in American society and especially Republican politics are to the right of most voters on fiscal policy, which entails entitlement cuts, upper-class tax cuts, and so on. If anyone wants to know why the GOP is in such an uproar, why they voted for Trump despite his boorishness, and why there's a looming threat for Republicans like Flake (who distinguished himself as a staunch fiscal conservative), this is your answer.

A similar issue has been ongoing in the Democratic Party as well and relating the GOP intraparty civil war to the more visible one, at least here on Atlas, might clarify the issue for people here. The populists in the GOP supported Trump because he seemingly defied the party establishment, the donor class, the lobbyists, and all others intertwined with the existing political elite that dominates Washington. They still side with Trump over and against Congressional Republicans because they represent sell-outs to the elite; this is demonstrated by their allying with Democrats in condemning Trump's behavior, which has earned them credibility and praise by the establishment, yet their unpopular fiscal agenda is nevertheless ignored and able to continue. They view it as a total disregard for their voter base. All they have to do is condemn Trump's behavior and earn speaking slots across media networks, which they happily embrace, then continue to vote for unpopular austerity measures and benefits for the wealthy while that same media turns a blind eye. Those populist voters consider that to be the swamp; those who pander to voters during the campaign, quickly defy their interests upon election, and get away with it all by employing correct speech in the eyes of an establishment that only demands correct speech.

Sanders voters have been similarly critical of the Democratic Party, complaining that it's wedded to corporate interests, controlled by the donor class, and too cozy with lobbyists. That's exactly the populist Republicans' complaints. And, similarly, the issue isn't really social issues - it's economic issues. The party isn't far enough to the left on economics for Sanders voters, which they largely attribute to dependency on and allegiance to corporate money. For these populist Republicans, the problem is similar. In summary: Populist Republicans and Sanders Democrats want to rein in the power and influence of big money, lobbyists, corporations, and the establishment; and attribute their party's tone deaf, too (relatively) right-wing economic policy agenda to the disproportionate power of the wealthy and special interests. That's why immigration is such a divisive issue within the GOP today; both sides want stronger border enforcement and security, yet the fiscal conservatives are more comfortable with low-skilled and large-scale immigration than populist conservatives, which the latter attribute to their elitism and disregard for the interests of the working and middle class (which is also manifest in their pursuit of entitlement cuts and tax reduction for the wealthy).

All that is okay n stuff but what this says is Libertarians barely exist but there is a huge section of voters who are economically left but socially moderate to conservative. The left wing economic & socially liberal voters are already loyal hardcore Dem voters (most of them, discounting some Trump & some 3rd party voters).

The Democratic party has a huge chance to get a significant share of culturally conservative voters. The 1st target is economically super liberal voters (like -4 & lower) who voted for Trump, who should be easy pickings. The 2nd target should be moderately economically liberal voters who are no +5 or +7 in social issues, ie, not hardcore cultural conservatives. There is a huge chance to pick up culturally moderate economically liberal voters. They are close to 30% (maybe 25% & this over-estimates it). You can gain 7-8% of the total base which will be like a 15% swing.

This also is a huge problem for the GOP if only 25% of the voters are fiscally conservative which means 3/4 of the voters are largely united behind the Democrats economic agenda. Also, in this article, it shows Trump voters are some of the most concerned about Social Security which means these entitlement cuts should be a huge problem for the base. I do understand the concern of the base. They feel the GOP establishment sold them out on Immigration & the Gang of 8 bill. You can couple that up with racism, bigotry, Islamophobia & Trump fits the bill. Yes, there is a concern for lobbyist buying politicians & so on but that is not the only thing.

[pbrower2a]

The real shocker is how badly Hillary Clinton does with populists. Hillary Clinton ran an anti-populist campaign (as did Obama, who got away with it or even had no viable alternative) while Donald Trump professed to 'love low-information voters'. Those low-information voters, history shows, often get their political education with hard kicks from those pols who hurt them once elected.

Donald Trump in a way did what Ronald Reagan did -- run as a moderate and then go Right. But Trump lacks the political moxie that Reagan had... and it shows. He can force people to lower their expectations, but he can't convince them that there will be anything better as a result except for the economic elites.

Donald Trump does not offer free enterprise as a solution; he offers crony capitalism. If one is not among the cronies one will not like it. Trump can probably win the bigots full of fear of people who do not fit the values of white, traditionalist, anti-intellectual Christians in 2020...

Note also that only 4.31% of the electorate falls into the 'libertarian' quadrant, and it split almost evenly between Clinton, Trump, and 'other'. Not only are there few voters in this group; they are really capricious. In view of the paucity of libertarian voters, you can imagine how few libertarian political leaders there are for an effort to win libertarians over.

OK, Democrats. Want to win in 2018 and 2020? Tell people what good you are going to do for them.     

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

So, a mere 26.5% of American voters could be described as fiscally conservative, yet the policy agenda of the Congressional GOP is largely driven by fiscal conservatism. That's exactly why so many Republican voters feel estranged from their party in Congress and have been motivated to challenge them in primaries. On economic issues, the party is simply too far-right for more than half of their own base. Yet, the ones with wealth and power in American society and especially Republican politics are to the right of most voters on fiscal policy, which entails entitlement cuts, upper-class tax cuts, and so on. If anyone wants to know why the GOP is in such an uproar, why they voted for Trump despite his boorishness, and why there's a looming threat for Republicans like Flake (who distinguished himself as a staunch fiscal conservative), this is your answer.

A similar issue has been ongoing in the Democratic Party as well and relating the GOP intraparty civil war to the more visible one, at least here on Atlas, might clarify the issue for people here. The populists in the GOP supported Trump because he seemingly defied the party establishment, the donor class, the lobbyists, and all others intertwined with the existing political elite that dominates Washington. They still side with Trump over and against Congressional Republicans because they represent sell-outs to the elite; this is demonstrated by their allying with Democrats in condemning Trump's behavior, which has earned them credibility and praise by the establishment, yet their unpopular fiscal agenda is nevertheless ignored and able to continue. They view it as a total disregard for their voter base. All they have to do is condemn Trump's behavior and earn speaking slots across media networks, which they happily embrace, then continue to vote for unpopular austerity measures and benefits for the wealthy while that same media turns a blind eye. Those populist voters consider that to be the swamp; those who pander to voters during the campaign, quickly defy their interests upon election, and get away with it all by employing correct speech in the eyes of an establishment that only demands correct speech.

Sanders voters have been similarly critical of the Democratic Party, complaining that it's wedded to corporate interests, controlled by the donor class, and too cozy with lobbyists. That's exactly the populist Republicans' complaints. And, similarly, the issue isn't really social issues - it's economic issues. The party isn't far enough to the left on economics for Sanders voters, which they largely attribute to dependency on and allegiance to corporate money. For these populist Republicans, the problem is similar. In summary: Populist Republicans and Sanders Democrats want to rein in the power and influence of big money, lobbyists, corporations, and the establishment; and attribute their party's tone deaf, too (relatively) right-wing economic policy agenda to the disproportionate power of the wealthy and special interests. That's why immigration is such a divisive issue within the GOP today; both sides want stronger border enforcement and security, yet the fiscal conservatives are more comfortable with low-skilled and large-scale immigration than populist conservatives, which the latter attribute to their elitism and disregard for the interests of the working and middle class (which is also manifest in their pursuit of entitlement cuts and tax reduction for the wealthy).

All that is okay n stuff but what this says is Libertarians barely exist but there is a huge section of voters who are economically left but socially moderate to conservative. The left wing economic & socially liberal voters are already loyal hardcore Dem voters (most of them, discounting some Trump & some 3rd party voters).

The Democratic party has a huge chance to get a significant share of culturally conservative voters. The 1st target is economically super liberal voters (like -4 & lower) who voted for Trump, who should be easy pickings. The 2nd target should be moderately economically liberal voters who are no +5 or +7 in social issues, ie, not hardcore cultural conservatives. There is a huge chance to pick up culturally moderate economically liberal voters. They are close to 30% (maybe 25% & this over-estimates it). You can gain 7-8% of the total base which will be like a 15% swing.

This also is a huge problem for the GOP if only 25% of the voters are fiscally conservative which means 3/4 of the voters are largely united behind the Democrats economic agenda. Also, in this article, it shows Trump voters are some of the most concerned about Social Security which means these entitlement cuts should be a huge problem for the base. I do understand the concern of the base. They feel the GOP establishment sold them out on Immigration & the Gang of 8 bill. You can couple that up with racism, bigotry, Islamophobia & Trump fits the bill. Yes, there is a concern for lobbyist buying politicians & so on but that is not the only thing.

Regarding the highlighted portion:  If Democrats were serious about winning over the economic liberals who are socially conservative, the Democratic Party ought to COLLECTIVELY apologize for Hillary Clinton's "Basket of Deplorables" comment.  Prominent Democrats need to apologize for this statement, place the blame on Hillary, squarely and unconditionally, and without reservation.

There's no substitute for this.  Hillary Clinton told those folks that they were trash.  Let the whole of the Democratic Party disown that statement, and the person who made it.

[Frodo]

The Democratic Party can move all the way to Sanders' POV -and they still won't vote for them.  What this study is forgetting is that racism motivates them at least as much as economic populism.

Hillary Clinton's 'basket of deplorables' comment is absolutely correct, and I see no reason why we need to sell our souls to the devil the way the GOP has already done to get those people back.  We need to focus on motivating our own 'missing voters' first.  

[Beet]

In the 1990s, Bill Clinton became an economic conservative to appeal to the middle of the road, and while it seemed to work at first, today no individual is as despised as Bill Clinton nor as attacked for his moving to the right on economics. If the Democrats appeal to social conservatives today, who’s to say the same thing won’t happen in 20 years?

[Holmes]

Bringing up the deplorables comment here is as pointless as bringing up the Access Hollywood tape (which all Republicans should apologize for).

[7,052,770]

The only problem with the basket of deplorables remark was the the non-deplorable half often thought she was talking about them, egged on by the deplorable half.

The only people who owe an apology is the deplorable half who swindled and tricked non-deplorable people into thinking Hillary was talking about them, which she clearly wasn't.

[IceSpear]

The only problem with the basket of deplorables remark was the the non-deplorable half often thought she was talking about them, egged on by the deplorable half.

The only people who owe an apology is the deplorable half who swindled and tricked non-deplorable people into thinking Hillary was talking about them, which she clearly wasn't.

Hillary's basket of deplorables comment was actually very diplomatic and far too generous. It was much more than half.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

The Democratic Party can move all the way to Sanders' POV -and they still won't vote for them.  What this study is forgetting is that racism motivates them at least as much as economic populism.

Hillary Clinton's 'basket of deplorables' comment is absolutely correct, and I see no reason why we need to sell our souls to the devil the way the GOP has already done to get those people back.  We need to focus on motivating our own 'missing voters' first.  

I would prefer our leaders skip this sort of judgmental horse manure of ordinary working folks and focus on the economic interests of ordinary folks of all American citizens, regardless of race.  The WWC has a greater commonality of interest with the Black Working class than it does with the 1%, but comments such as Hillary's reflect her own prejudices and contempt for folks she believes she's above.  The voters Hillary NEEDED to win were dumped on BY HER, PERSONALLY; if you call me an a-hole, do you think you're going to win me over to your way of thinking?  The last election demonstrated just how fed up folks are with being lectured to by politicians, and they believed that the candidate that stopped lecturing them on their awfulness just might be the candidate who had their best interests at heart (at least moreso than Hillary) on a variety of other issues as well.

But if you read the posts that come just before this one, you'll see why the Democratic Party is a group of slow learners who alienate the voters they need to win.  It's hard to put emphasis on social liberalism and identity politics and convince working class voters that their hard effort doing the actual work of society is actually notices and respected by the liberal elites.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Effect?  Trump 2020

[JA]

The Democratic Party can move all the way to Sanders' POV -and they still won't vote for them.  What this study is forgetting is that racism motivates them at least as much as economic populism.

Hillary Clinton's 'basket of deplorables' comment is absolutely correct, and I see no reason why we need to sell our souls to the devil the way the GOP has already done to get those people back.  We need to focus on motivating our own 'missing voters' first.  

I would prefer our leaders skip this sort of judgmental horse manure of ordinary working folks and focus on the economic interests of ordinary folks of all American citizens, regardless of race.  The WWC has a greater commonality of interest with the Black Working class than it does with the 1%, but comments such as Hillary's reflect her own prejudices and contempt for folks she believes she's above.  The voters Hillary NEEDED to win were dumped on BY HER, PERSONALLY; if you call me an a-hole, do you think you're going to win me over to your way of thinking?  The last election demonstrated just how fed up folks are with being lectured to by politicians, and they believed that the candidate that stopped lecturing them on their awfulness just might be the candidate who had their best interests at heart (at least moreso than Hillary) on a variety of other issues as well.

But if you read the posts that come just before this one, you'll see why the Democratic Party is a group of slow learners who alienate the voters they need to win.  It's hard to put emphasis on social liberalism and identity politics and convince working class voters that their hard effort doing the actual work of society is actually notices and respected by the liberal elites.

Honestly, I can't help but largely agree with you, Fuzzy. Remember when Gordon Brown was caught on a hot mic calling a Labour voter a "bigoted woman"? That was rightfully an enormous controversy in British politics as it demonstrated how Brown, and the establishment that he represented, felt they were above the common person. And, compared to what Clinton said intentionally in public, that was far more understandable. You don't speak down to the Americans you're supposed to represent; like them or hate them, you represent all of America when you're President. And to speak in such condescending language to what the Democrats simultaneously portrayed as "working class" folks by a multimillionaire was not only horrible optics, but is also a perfect example of the sense of entitlement and superiority held by America's elite (and their largely middle and upper class allies).

It's simply not a politician's place to condemn a significant group of Americans they're aspiring to represent, especially when it isn't some powerful, well-connected group. Democrats who defend those statements are defending a multimillionaire politician ridiculing and dismissing millions of, at least what they perceive as, working and lower class Americans. Whether you agree with her sentiments that a large number of Americans are deplorable is entirely different than Clinton making a public speech proclaiming that. She screwed up big time and it almost certainly contributed to some degree to her election loss.

[Hindsight was 2020]

The Democratic Party can move all the way to Sanders' POV -and they still won't vote for them.  What this study is forgetting is that racism motivates them at least as much as economic populism.

Hillary Clinton's 'basket of deplorables' comment is absolutely correct, and I see no reason why we need to sell our souls to the devil the way the GOP has already done to get those people back.  We need to focus on motivating our own 'missing voters' first.  

I would prefer our leaders skip this sort of judgmental horse manure of ordinary working folks and focus on the economic interests of ordinary folks of all American citizens, regardless of race.  The WWC has a greater commonality of interest with the Black Working class than it does with the 1%, but comments such as Hillary's reflect her own prejudices and contempt for folks she believes she's above.  The voters Hillary NEEDED to win were dumped on BY HER, PERSONALLY; if you call me an a-hole, do you think you're going to win me over to your way of thinking?  The last election demonstrated just how fed up folks are with being lectured to by politicians, and they believed that the candidate that stopped lecturing them on their awfulness just might be the candidate who had their best interests at heart (at least moreso than Hillary) on a variety of other issues as well.

But if you read the posts that come just before this one, you'll see why the Democratic Party is a group of slow learners who alienate the voters they need to win.  It's hard to put emphasis on social liberalism and identity politics and convince working class voters that their hard effort doing the actual work of society is actually notices and respected by the liberal elites.

Honestly, I can't help but largely agree with you, Fuzzy. Remember when Gordon Brown was caught on a hot mic calling a Labour voter a "bigoted woman"? That was rightfully an enormous controversy in British politics as it demonstrated how Brown, and the establishment that he represented, felt they were above the common person. And, compared to what Clinton said intentionally in public, that was far more understandable. You don't speak down to the Americans you're supposed to represent; like them or hate them, you represent all of America when you're President. And to speak in such condescending language to what the Democrats simultaneously portrayed as "working class" folks by a multimillionaire was not only horrible optics, but is also a perfect example of the sense of entitlement and superiority held by America's elite (and their largely middle and upper class allies).

It's simply not a politician's place to condemn a significant group of Americans they're aspiring to represent, especially when it isn't some powerful, well-connected group. Democrats who defend those statements are defending a multimillionaire politician ridiculing and dismissing millions of, at least what they perceive as, working and lower class Americans. Whether you agree with her sentiments that a large number of Americans are deplorable is entirely different than Clinton making a public speech proclaiming that. She screwed up big time and it almost certainly contributed to some degree to her election loss.

Do you not realize you describe Trump to the tee yet he goes the step further of actually attacking these people with the power of his office but his base loves it

[JA]

The Democratic Party can move all the way to Sanders' POV -and they still won't vote for them.  What this study is forgetting is that racism motivates them at least as much as economic populism.

Hillary Clinton's 'basket of deplorables' comment is absolutely correct, and I see no reason why we need to sell our souls to the devil the way the GOP has already done to get those people back.  We need to focus on motivating our own 'missing voters' first.  

I would prefer our leaders skip this sort of judgmental horse manure of ordinary working folks and focus on the economic interests of ordinary folks of all American citizens, regardless of race.  The WWC has a greater commonality of interest with the Black Working class than it does with the 1%, but comments such as Hillary's reflect her own prejudices and contempt for folks she believes she's above.  The voters Hillary NEEDED to win were dumped on BY HER, PERSONALLY; if you call me an a-hole, do you think you're going to win me over to your way of thinking?  The last election demonstrated just how fed up folks are with being lectured to by politicians, and they believed that the candidate that stopped lecturing them on their awfulness just might be the candidate who had their best interests at heart (at least moreso than Hillary) on a variety of other issues as well.

But if you read the posts that come just before this one, you'll see why the Democratic Party is a group of slow learners who alienate the voters they need to win.  It's hard to put emphasis on social liberalism and identity politics and convince working class voters that their hard effort doing the actual work of society is actually notices and respected by the liberal elites.

Honestly, I can't help but largely agree with you, Fuzzy. Remember when Gordon Brown was caught on a hot mic calling a Labour voter a "bigoted woman"? That was rightfully an enormous controversy in British politics as it demonstrated how Brown, and the establishment that he represented, felt they were above the common person. And, compared to what Clinton said intentionally in public, that was far more understandable. You don't speak down to the Americans you're supposed to represent; like them or hate them, you represent all of America when you're President. And to speak in such condescending language to what the Democrats simultaneously portrayed as "working class" folks by a multimillionaire was not only horrible optics, but is also a perfect example of the sense of entitlement and superiority held by America's elite (and their largely middle and upper class allies).

It's simply not a politician's place to condemn a significant group of Americans they're aspiring to represent, especially when it isn't some powerful, well-connected group. Democrats who defend those statements are defending a multimillionaire politician ridiculing and dismissing millions of, at least what they perceive as, working and lower class Americans. Whether you agree with her sentiments that a large number of Americans are deplorable is entirely different than Clinton making a public speech proclaiming that. She screwed up big time and it almost certainly contributed to some degree to her election loss.

Do you not realize you describe Trump to the tee yet he goes the step further of actually attacking these people with the power of his office but his base loves it

Oh, trust me, I know. Nobody is worse than Donald Trump in that regard. However, he at least had the benefit of claiming to be outside of the system and using populist rhetoric to rail against it. Whether he can successfully repeat that in 2020 is yet to be determined. Trump also had the benefit of tapping into a significant element of racism, sexism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia in our nation, which aided his campaign.

[DC Al Fine]

I always knew the "libertarian quadrant" was undersized, but holy crap, I didn't think they were 4% of the population! Goes to show how over represented they are in the media and how terrible an idea it would be basing one's strategy around them.

As for party strategies:

GOP: Moderate on economics. Free marketeers are maybe 30% of the electorate. One needs to appeal to a broader coalition. Paying for healthcare isn't the end of the world.

Democrats: Tone down just a tad on cultural issues. There are a lot of winnable red dots just past the borders of the top left quadrant. Yeah Trump has probably alienated them, but a competent GOP candidate leaning in that direction would clean up with them. Just a little less absolutism on abortion, religious liberty, immigration, and policing would go a long long way here.

Also, a Trumpish candidate with a bit of sense could clean up with the GOP if they could get through a primary.

[Maxwell]

I think a lot of these voters would subscribe to GOP economic policies except when those policies are aimed at themselves - which is just gibberish and is thanks to one party running on cultural grievances (which brings a lot of these voters in) and the other party that is actively against doing actual politics. 

[darklordoftech]

I wonder if wanting loose gun laws is counted as a libertarian view or not.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Something tells me to win these economically liberal and socially conservative voters, Democrats will have to go further than not calling them deplorables. Like banning refugees and reversing gay marriage.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Something tells me to win these economically liberal and socially conservative voters, Democrats will have to go further than not calling them deplorables. Like banning refugees and reversing gay marriage.

No but you don't have to run around saying you are going to end all deportations like Hillary Clinton did. Obama deported a lot of people to enforce the laws on the books, mostly targeted at criminal illegal aliens, and yet he got attacked on it from the left as if he was doing some kind of horrible thing. Obama was a moderate on this issue favoring a crackdown on employers who hire illegals as well and deporting criminal aliens, while supporting a path to citizenship. Hillary Clinton ran as an open borders extremist. Obama was at least somewhat desiring to be honest when he promised enforcement in exchange for legalization. What Clinton did and what Democrats have done generally since is to basically make themselves guilty of the Republican attack that they are for open borders and cyclical amnesty and will intentionally break such a promise.

It is the same kind of thing discussed in the Boehner Interview thread about the Republican Party. You have a lot of selfish self-promoters who put themselves and their political advancement first and take an extremist position on an issue.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Something tells me to win these economically liberal and socially conservative voters, Democrats will have to go further than not calling them deplorables. Like banning refugees and reversing gay marriage.

No but you don't have to run around saying you are going to end all deportations like Hillary Clinton did. Obama deported a lot of people to enforce the laws on the books, mostly targeted at criminal illegal aliens, and yet he got attacked on it from the left as if he was doing some kind of horrible thing. Obama was a moderate on this issue favoring a crackdown on employers who hire illegals as well and deporting criminal aliens, while supporting a path to citizenship. Hillary Clinton ran as an open borders extremist. Obama was at least somewhat desiring to be honest when he promised enforcement in exchange for legalization. What Clinton did and what Democrats have done generally since is to basically make themselves guilty of the Republican attack that they are for open borders and cyclical amnesty and will intentionally break such a promise.

It is the same kind of thing discussed in the Boehner Interview thread about the Republican Party. You have a lot of selfish self-promoters who put themselves and their political advancement first and take an extremist position on an issue.

That's the thing. These socially liberal positions don't come out of the sky. They're advocated by millions of people, whether out of perceived self-interest or moral obligation. If Democrats try to cater too much to people with socially conservative views, congrats, they lose the base and the Republicans still win, just as they do when they embrace fiscally conservative views.

[SNJ1985]

The Republican Party should learn from the success of European right-wing populists and moderate on economic issues while remaining staunchly culturally conservative and opposing mass immigration.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Something tells me to win these economically liberal and socially conservative voters, Democrats will have to go further than not calling them deplorables. Like banning refugees and reversing gay marriage.

No but you don't have to run around saying you are going to end all deportations like Hillary Clinton did. Obama deported a lot of people to enforce the laws on the books, mostly targeted at criminal illegal aliens, and yet he got attacked on it from the left as if he was doing some kind of horrible thing. Obama was a moderate on this issue favoring a crackdown on employers who hire illegals as well and deporting criminal aliens, while supporting a path to citizenship. Hillary Clinton ran as an open borders extremist. Obama was at least somewhat desiring to be honest when he promised enforcement in exchange for legalization. What Clinton did and what Democrats have done generally since is to basically make themselves guilty of the Republican attack that they are for open borders and cyclical amnesty and will intentionally break such a promise.

It is the same kind of thing discussed in the Boehner Interview thread about the Republican Party. You have a lot of selfish self-promoters who put themselves and their political advancement first and take an extremist position on an issue.

That's the thing. These socially liberal positions don't come out of the sky. They're advocated by millions of people, whether out of perceived self-interest or moral obligation. If Democrats try to cater too much to people with socially conservative views, congrats, they lose the base and the Republicans still win, just as they do when they embrace fiscally conservative views.

You are making a mistake the Republicans do. Defining the base too narrowly, just like the Republicans and buying into the same narrative that Republicans did, "we lost because we were not conservative enough".

On what planet, is there some moral obligation to oppose the deportation of "Criminal illegal aliens? Not even all illegals, just those who have committed crimes?

[Shadows]

Something tells me to win these economically liberal and socially conservative voters, Democrats will have to go further than not calling them deplorables. Like banning refugees and reversing gay marriage.

No but you don't have to run around saying you are going to end all deportations like Hillary Clinton did. Obama deported a lot of people to enforce the laws on the books, mostly targeted at criminal illegal aliens, and yet he got attacked on it from the left as if he was doing some kind of horrible thing. Obama was a moderate on this issue favoring a crackdown on employers who hire illegals as well and deporting criminal aliens, while supporting a path to citizenship. Hillary Clinton ran as an open borders extremist. Obama was at least somewhat desiring to be honest when he promised enforcement in exchange for legalization. What Clinton did and what Democrats have done generally since is to basically make themselves guilty of the Republican attack that they are for open borders and cyclical amnesty and will intentionally break such a promise.

It is the same kind of thing discussed in the Boehner Interview thread about the Republican Party. You have a lot of selfish self-promoters who put themselves and their political advancement first and take an extremist position on an issue.

That's the thing. These socially liberal positions don't come out of the sky. They're advocated by millions of people, whether out of perceived self-interest or moral obligation. If Democrats try to cater too much to people with socially conservative views, congrats, they lose the base and the Republicans still win, just as they do when they embrace fiscally conservative views.

I don't understand what you are trying to say "Cater to social conservatives". Should Democrats oppose abortion, nominate a conservative candidate or oppose taking refugees or oppose Gay marriage? Absolutely not. That is the core base of the Democrats & should be more about Democratic values, about what the party is, like Democratic party was always the party about economic justice, standing with the working class & the little guy. It is not abandoning you social values.

Democrats will never get +6 type social conservatives, no matter how economically liberal they are. People who view abortion as murder & are staunch gun advocates & are anti-Muslim, anti-immigrants, anti-gay marriage & hold dogmatic views on all issues won't come. But that is not the entire base. There will be a 6-7% odd of the entire voting base who are moderate on social issues. Maybe they oppose 1 of abortion or gay marriage or like guns but that is not a decisive issue for them & are willing to look past it & are strong economically liberal voters. There are substantial voters like that.

You can't placate everyone & appease people on every issue. But the point is that Democrats have largely won the cultural war, will nominate liberal SC justices so why not run a liberal economic campaign based on economically liberal issues. The reason Universal Healthcare or Minimum Wage or preserving Entitlements gets such a high rating in polls is because people are overwhelmingly liberal in economics. This is not a 1 election or 2020 strategy but a largely 15-20 year picture. Young people who are into the voting are much more liberal than the older voters dying so the country will only move left on economics barring no major shift.

[IceSpear]

Almost nobody votes based on economic issues, and some only loosely vote based off "social issues." For the vast majority of people their party affiliation and vote is pure tribalism.