Hindsight and all that...

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

It's going to be a while before we really piece together exactly why Trump won. And the answer will involve a lot of different moving parts. The black and Hispanic vote didn't go for Hillary as much as it did for Obama. Trump turned several blue rural counties red. Polling location closures in Arizona hurt Democratic turnout. Etc.

But not every cause is equal. If minorities had voted for Hillary the same as they did for Obama in Florida, it wouldn't have made a difference. The urban/rural divide is real, but it's not exactly new. And even if more people in Maricopa County voted, it probably wouldn't have flipped Arizona to Hillary.

One big cause of this loss, though, the one I'd argue was determinative, was the defection of blue collar white labor from the Democratic party in the rust belt. Overall, 49% of voters in union households went for Trump, an historically high number. And, honestly, we should have seen it coming.

Back in January, the Democrats were warned that Trump was killing it with union workers in the Midwest. And while very few Democrats in recent decades can claim to be die-hard friends of labor, this is a type of baggage that would be especially heavy for the Clinton camp, which had already given us one President that unions weren't exactly wild for. And again, the warning signs were there, even last year:

I was in northeast Ohio on a mission to find out how organized labor is feeling these days about Hillary Clinton. Seven years ago, Clinton captured a majority of union households in Ohio, en route to a 10-point primary victory against Barack Obama. In Lorain County, her margin was even more resounding: 57-to-41.

At this fundraiser, however, skepticism toward Clinton was definitely in the air. Of the nine union members I interviewed, just one was supporting her. (Four were undecided, three were backing Bernie Sanders, and one was leaning toward Marco Rubio.) Some associated her with the unpopular trade policies of her husband. Others said she had been tainted by controversy, past and present. Most questioned her commitment to labor.

“I think Hillary says the right things,” said Jim Slone, head of the Lorain County UAW’s political action committee. (Slone voted for Clinton in 2008.) “I don’t think she really believes in all those things.”​

And now, with 20/20 hindsight, we can see how even the primary results foretold this problem. There was a candidate, after all, who wasn't considered a serious threat at first to the Clinton inevitability, and he was scoffed at as unelectable by Democrats and Republicans alike. But there's one thing you couldn't call him: unpopular with union voters. While national leaders were getting behind Hillary early, Bernie was cleaning up with the locals.

All of this culminated in what, until yesterday, many considered the most stunning upset in recent political memory: Bernie's victory in the Michigan primary. But here's the thing. Two other states Bernie significantly outperformed his polling in? Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. In each state, depending on the polls you look at, he outperformed by at least mid-to-high single digits, if not low double digits.

Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania. The three states that, effectively, just made Trump our next President. Something was going on in those states during the primary season that the polls didn't pick up on. Something was still going on in those states during the general that the polls didn't pick up on.

Now, I'm trying my best not to go full "I told you so" to my fellow Democrats quite yet. Give them time to digest what just happened. But, for all the talk of electability, it turns out that Bernie was the electable one, for one simple reason: he was the one Democrat speaking the populist message that resonated with rust belt labor, a constituency that, once upon a time, was such an important part of the Democratic coalition. A constituency that abandoned Hillary just enough to cost her the White House.

We've talked a lot about where the GOP goes post-Trump. But now that the Dems are firmly in a minority opposition role for at least two years (and probably longer), it's time to flip that question around. The party needs to find a way to repair its relationship with labor. An endorsement from SEIU or UAW national leadership looks great, but it doesn't mean anything if the actual members don't want to vote for you. It's time for the party to take a long look in the mirror. And, while I don't expect Bernie himself to run again in 2020, Democrats need to look at his message and his strategy, and come to grips with the fact that his against-the-current campaign was the only one that got labor voters excited. They need to make some changes fast, or the Midwest might turn red for a generation.

 

[dbmhoosier]

Democrats have become the party of Buffet, Zuckerburg, Soros, etc and poor people. They've been giving the middle finger to the middle class for decades and the American people have finally had enough.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Democrats have become the party of Buffet, Zuckerburg, Soros, etc and poor people. They've been giving the middle finger to the middle class for decades and the American people have finally had enough.

That's not what the numbers say. The numbers say middle class voters lean Democrat while high income voters lean Republican. The numbers also support my contention: Hillary did historically poorly among union voters specifically.

 

[twenty02]

Doesn't it just come down to turnout?

From most of what I've seen, Trumps raw vote numbers were even or behind what Romney got....but Democrats and left leaners didn't show up for Hillary.

Look at these numbers in WI and MI

Donald Trump got fewer votes than Mitt Romney in Wisconsin. But Trump won where Romney lost. The total number of votes in Michigan? Down. Wisconsin? Down. Only Pennsylvania had a tiny nudge upward in total votes.

There were no “hidden Trump voters” who crawled out of a cave on Election Day. There were simply Democratic voters who didn’t show. In Wisconsin alone, a quarter of a million voters … didn’t.

The result was a razor thin margin in enough states to change the outcome.​

http://m.dailykos.com/stories/1594365

 

[El Drado]

Democrats have become the party of Buffet, Zuckerburg, Soros, etc and poor people. They've been giving the middle finger to the middle class for decades and the American people have finally had enough.

How have the Democrats given the middle finger to the middle class?

That's not what the numbers say. The numbers say middle class voters lean Democrat while high income voters lean Republican. The numbers also support my contention: Hillary did historically poorly among union voters specifically.

A couple things:....

• from listening to a years worth of NPR interviews with voters....Conservative women voting for trump b/c of Pro-life tipped the scales imo...
• AND the biggest thing that no one is talking about is the women thing. People still find it very hard to have a woman in power...even other women. everything else is smoke and mirrors.
  
• She still won the popular vote though, but she should of won bigger if there were less dumb little monkeys

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Doesn't it just come down to turnout?

From most of what I've seen, Trumps raw vote numbers were even or behind what Romney got....but Democrats and left leaners didn't show up for Hillary.

Look at these numbers in WI and MI

Donald Trump got fewer votes than Mitt Romney in Wisconsin. But Trump won where Romney lost. The total number of votes in Michigan? Down. Wisconsin? Down. Only Pennsylvania had a tiny nudge upward in total votes.

There were no “hidden Trump voters” who crawled out of a cave on Election Day. There were simply Democratic voters who didn’t show. In Wisconsin alone, a quarter of a million voters … didn’t.

The result was a razor thin margin in enough states to change the outcome.​

http://m.dailykos.com/stories/1594365

Everyone who loses always says it's about turnout. That's because reducing the problem to turnout allows you to reduce the solution to something benign like "gotta get our people to the polls!" It would be much more useful to look for actual specific problems that can be fixed.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

That's not what the numbers say. The numbers say middle class voters lean Democrat while high income voters lean Republican. The numbers also support my contention: Hillary did historically poorly among union voters specifically.

I mentioned here that I was sensing an unusually high degree of support from my union employees for Trump. So at least some of us saw this coming. But I think I mostly got the obligatory "the plural of anecdote isn't data" pablum.

While trade is obviously a big issue for a lot of blue collar folks, I also think there's a wide gulf between them and the Democrats on immigration policy. And that really shouldn't come as any surprise. Basically put, the Democrats seem to be taking their support for granted while essentially favoring their (cheaper) competition.

But that's politics -- bean-counting. And you often have to be willing to concede some support from Group A in order to make inroads with Group B, particularly if their interests conflict. It's no secret that unions have undergone decades of decline -- in membership, clout, and virtually every other way. Simultaneously, the Hispanic demographic has grown significantly (11% of the 2016 electorate). So, while it does stand to reason that a growing voting bloc has gained at the expense of a shrinking one, that's also something of a double-edged sword.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Both parties have some issues going forward. I saw a story this morning wondering if the Trump Republican Party will become the populist party. If it does, where do movement conservatives go? For the Democrats, they have serious problems with the labor part of their core. Without that element, what sort of percentages can they look forward to going forward. If they can't bring labor home, the Democrats are in for some rough years until they can overcome the loss of Michigan, Ohio, PA and WI. Eventually Texas, Georgia, and Arizona may offset that but we ain't there yet.

Protectionism is an interesting problem for the Democrats. It is wildly popular in many progressive circles.

 

[td75]

When Reagan won in 80', many union families voted for him. My family at the time had at least 5 members that were old school, union men working for Ford Motor Co. in Louisville. My great grandfather, grandfather, and uncle, voted Republican for the first time in decades that election. The point being, when Republican presidents are elected, they almost always do very well with union men and women.

I'm a painting contractor and I witnessed my gross sales go from 130k throughout the Bush years, shrink to under 100k in sales throughout the Obama years. We took it on the chin during the Obama presidency from a gross sales standpoint. The commercial painting jobs dried up.

In the end, as a small business owner, I was forced to vote my pocket book and it was considerably lighter these last few years of Obama.

 

[IUCrazy2]

She still won the popular vote though, but she should of won bigger if there were less dumb little monkeys

Some of you still do not get it. Even if I agree with you on certain points, there is only so much of this type of crap I am going to be willing to take before I push back.

There seems to be this mindset among way too many of you liberal guys/gals that everyone has to agree with you on every single issue. And not only do they have to agree with you, if they do not, they are deplorable, or "dumb little monkeys", or -ists, or -phobes.

News flash, there are quite a few people who are receptive to Democrats on economics but who are not totally on board with where you guys want to push things socially. And many of those types reside in blue collar, union households.

For an anecdote, saw a post from some guy on Facebook yesterday that he was being driven around the airport by a 69 year old lady. He was a young African American male. He said he had a nice conversation with the lady, they shared about their lives, she complimented the sweater he was wearing. He got the talk to politics and asked how she voted. She said she was a Democrat normally but she went Trump this time because she felt things needed a shake up. He said in his post that it must be nice to put the things he felt were important as secondary so she could vote for economics because "white privelege". It took another person to point out that a 69 year old lady who was still humping it everyday might have her own problems and that instead of criticizing they could seek to find out how to understand where she was coming from.

So here is a clearly non racist woman who gets thrown into a "deplorable" category for having the audacity to vote for her interests. The problem that the loudest voices on the left have is not your views (even though I disagree with many of them), it is the way you act towards people who do not hold your views.

All those Dumb Monkeys just gave you a poke in the eye. Maybe instead of doubling down on what pissed them off in the first place, you could look in the mirror and figure out what you need to change.

 

[MrBing]

Everyone who loses always says it's about turnout. That's because reducing the problem to turnout allows you to reduce the solution to something benign like "gotta get our people to the polls!" It would be much more useful to look for actual specific problems that can be fixed.

One of the reasons I went to bed early on election night thinking it was in the bag for Hillary was because of all I was hearing about her great GOTV machine and how Trump didn't have one. This election was crazy weird.

 

[mjvcaj]

Everyone who loses always says it's about turnout. That's because reducing the problem to turnout allows you to reduce the solution to something benign like "gotta get our people to the polls!" It would be much more useful to look for actual specific problems that can be fixed.

I think you are over-complicating things. The lack of turnout is due to a lesser candidate than the prior one.

You can blame women, factory workers, etc. but that doesn't change the fact that far less people came out to vote overall, and more importantly, for the lesser candidate.

 

[mjvcaj]

• AND the biggest thing that no one is talking about is the women thing. People still find it very hard to have a woman in power...even other women. everything else is smoke and mirrors.

So you think the women can handle having a woman as President?

 

[alax2]

Everyone who loses always says it's about turnout. That's because reducing the problem to turnout allows you to reduce the solution to something benign like "gotta get our people to the polls!" It would be much more useful to look for actual specific problems that can be fixed.

But isn't it about turn out. I would bet that a lot of the people that didn't vote would have preferred Hillary, but they didn't vote. Maybe the problem is that she had too many flaws or people didn't believe her, so they didn't vote at all. It isn't that the Democrats had abandoned them or forgot them, but rather THE Democrat, Hillary, didn't excite them enough to vote.

 

[twenty02]

Everyone who loses always says it's about turnout. That's because reducing the problem to turnout allows you to reduce the solution to something benign like "gotta get our people to the polls!" It would be much more useful to look for actual specific problems that can be fixed.

Well, I agree that you have to get to the root cause.....but I think the root cause has as much to do with the name on the ticket as any specific policy position.

The fix could be as easy as NOT nominating a greatly disliked and untrusted candidate that nobody is motivated to show up for.

At least that's what I get out of these popular vote numbers. Trump has less votes than McCain or Romney at this point.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

How have the Democrats given the middle finger to the middle class?

A couple things:....

• from listening to a years worth of NPR interviews with voters....Conservative women voting for trump b/c of Pro-life tipped the scales imo...
• AND the biggest thing that no one is talking about is the women thing. People still find it very hard to have a woman in power...even other women. everything else is smoke and mirrors.
  
• She still won the popular vote though, but she should of won bigger if there were less dumb little monkeys

I work with pretty much all women. I heard all but one, literally one, say they didn't think a woman could run a country.

I don't think that was all of it though. From what I've read, Hillary's campaign was horribly run. She took on a lot of Bernie's policy ideas and then her campaign just forgot to keep reminding people. Everything was about how bad Trump was.

I read an interview yesterday where I guy was talking about how he gave to both the Bernie and Hillary campaigns during and after the primaries. He said he gave $100 whenever he received an email asking for money if, and only if, said email contained actual policy positions and what would be done. He said he maxed out to the Bernie primary campaign and as of election night he had given only $300 to Hillary.

 

[dbmhoosier]

Those of you blaming it on turnout well there was a National Review article yesterday that said Trump got more votes in FL, NC, PA, OH, and IA than Obama did in 2012.

 

[alax2]

Those of you blaming it on turnout well there was a National Review article yesterday that said Trump got more votes in FL, NC, PA, OH, and IA than Obama did in 2012.

It would seem to me that it is more important to consider how Hillary did as compared to Obama than how Trump did as compared to Obama. Trump got his voters out. Hillary didn't. I think that is the point the turn-out people are trying to make.

 

[dahldc]

I'm a painting contractor and I witnessed my gross sales go from 130k throughout the Bush years, shrink to under 100k in sales throughout the Obama years. We took it on the chin during the Obama presidency from a gross sales standpoint. The commercial painting jobs dried up.

Interesting. I'm also in the painting industry and our sales over the last 4 years have averaged 12% growth. In fact we have grown sales every year since 2005. We are much bigger than you(not saying this as a "haha" moment), but we have had no problem landing commercial jobs.

 

[iuwclurker1]

Now, I'm trying my best not to go full "I told you so" to my fellow Democrats quite yet.

This is on the fool Bernheads who didn't vote as much as anyone. You get what you wish for. Your mindset on this is laughable. Just like Aloha claiming his single vote in Ohio didn't matter. Every vote matters.

If there's a lesson to be learned for Dems, it's vote. Butthurt Bernheads just kissed Obamacare, free college education, higher national minimum wage and everything else Bernie stood for good bye. If they don't vote in 2018 and the SC goes to 6-3, they might kiss Roe v Wade good bye.

 

[alax2]

This is on the fool Bernheads who didn't vote as much as anyone. You get what you wish for. Your mindset on this is laughable. Just like Aloha claiming his single vote in Ohio didn't matter. Every vote matters.

If there's a lesson to be learned for Dems, it's vote. Butthurt Bernheads just kissed Obamacare, free college education, higher national minimum wage and everything else Bernie stood for good bye. If they don't vote in 2018 and the SC goes to 6-3, they might kiss Roe v Wade good bye.

Yes, Democrats must vote, but the "right" Democrats must vote. Didn't really make any difference if more Democrats in Californian vote or not this time. Hillary, amazingly, didn't get the Democrats in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida or North Carolina to vote. Who would have thought she would lose all those states?

Go to this site and toggle between 2012 Actual and 2016. The states she lost is almost incomprehensible. They are supposed to be for the Democrats. http://www.270towin.com/

 

[Marvin the Martian]

This is on the fool Bernheads who didn't vote as much as anyone. You get what you wish for. Your mindset on this is laughable. Just like Aloha claiming his single vote in Ohio didn't matter. Every vote matters.

If there's a lesson to be learned for Dems, it's vote. Butthurt Bernheads just kissed Obamacare, free college education, higher national minimum wage and everything else Bernie stood for good bye. If they don't vote in 2018 and the SC goes to 6-3, they might kiss Roe v Wade good bye.

I haven't seen exit polling on Sanders supporters, do you have something?

 

[IUCrazy2]

Yes, Democrats must vote, but the "right" Democrats must vote. Didn't really make any difference if more Democrats in Californian vote or not this time. Hillary, amazingly, didn't get the Democrats in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida or North Carolina to vote. Who would have thought she would lose all those states?

Or maybe she got the wrong Democrats motivated to vote. Those blue collar union members that helped turn the rust belt red are not typical Republican voters.

 

[iuwclurker1]

10 reasons for liberals to let go of the panic button

Summer before last, I took Trump seriously before almost evveryone here. Check back to my posts if you don't remember. I studied him carefully. The first thing that stood out was that he was more nuanced than people noticed. He didn't emphasize or defend his nuance because his MO was creating conflict to earn free media. His naunce flew by most people. People like Zeke are too flustered and flummoxed to open their eyes to this, but he's our president now, so he deserves a blank planchet to start out with.

1. Trump is a first-class negotiator. His saying that he'll keep everything on the table is smart. He won't nuke anyone, but he'll keep our "enemies" in fear that he might.

2. Trump will improve our trade deals and leverage the Chinese good and hard on their currency manipulation. This is good for America.

3. Trump is not sexist. Actions speak louder than words. He hired a woman to run an entire project in male-dominated construction in NYC. He's hired many women eecutives. He turned his campaign around this summer by hiring a woman to run it. His "objectifing" woman, scaling their beauty 1 to 10, is really not anything the rest of us don't do. We all judge and evaluate people's attractiveness and relatve beauty. The difference is, Trump vocalizes it in a way many people find politically incorrect. Actions speak louder than words. Similarly, he's not racist or xenophobic. That's just part of his make-America-great-again schtick. If you want to slam him for partisan reasons, have at it. If you just care about women and minorities, R-E-L-A-X.

4. Trump wants to improve inner cities. Kudos.

5. Washington will be marked by constructivism rather than obstructionism for the next four years. That's good for the country no matter the reason.

6. Obamacare will get defunded but the health care movement has made irrevocable steps forward. It will be hard for Congress to dump 20 million people off the health insurance registers.

7. Trump wants to spend money on infrastructure. Good for the United States even if it's infuriating that Congress obstructed Obama on this.

8. Trump, for all his bluster, is far more pragmatic than ideological. That's probably why it's hard to pin him down on stances but it's good. Ideology, both liberal and conservative, is fundamentally an idee fixe trap and as such anti-science. Trump may not appear to be be akin to Bill Nye, but pragmatism is a step in the right direction from where our politics are now.

9. Trump has made a grand promise to a lot of blue-collar whites. Nothing that he says is likely to actually help them. That's not beneficial for the country but it will swing things back to the Democrats when they realize his promises were hot air.

10. Trump vividly exposed a known but unexploited, boiling, pus-filled mudpot of a weak spot in liberal orthodoxy -- playing the victim card loses the game. It's finally time to focus on lending a hand rather than giving a hand-out. Finally time to realize that inhumanity in the guise of humanity is inhumanity. (I know, you don't want to hear this...)

The two losses for liberals in this election are the SC and the glass ceiling for women (that's not just for liberals). So be it. I'm banking on Trump being a good president.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

When Reagan won in 80', many union families voted for him. My family at the time had at least 5 members that were old school, union men working for Ford Motor Co. in Louisville. My great grandfather, grandfather, and uncle, voted Republican for the first time in decades that election. The point being, when Republican presidents are elected, they almost always do very well with union men and women.

I'm a painting contractor and I witnessed my gross sales go from 130k throughout the Bush years, shrink to under 100k in sales throughout the Obama years. We took it on the chin during the Obama presidency from a gross sales standpoint. The commercial painting jobs dried up.

In the end, as a small business owner, I was forced to vote my pocket book and it was considerably lighter these last few years of Obama.

With all due respect, and speaking as a fellow contractor and fellow Republican, I really don't think the occupant in the White House at any given time has too much direct impact on your top (or bottom) line.

My company had two atrocious consecutive years during the Obama administration -- 2011 and 2012. As any responsible manager should and would do, I spent a lot of time and effort evaluating what had gone wrong and what could be done (or not done) to improve our results going forward. Some of this I did on my own, some of it I sought sound outside counsel, some of it I did collaboratively with key people in the organization. I can assure you that at no time did I think or say "It's because of that SOB Obama!"

Granted, every business (and individual) has to deal with circumstances beyond their control. And, to be sure, the macro conditions in the construction sectors we operate in were really bad in that period. But we still were able to identify things within our control that we could focus on to rebound -- which we successfully did, even while market conditions remained soft. As such, here in the last year of Obama's tenure, we're on the verge of having the best year we've ever had -- in terms of EBITDA, anyway.

If you're always looking for externalities (be it politicians, competitors, market conditions, etc.) to blame for not meeting your goals, you'll probably struggle to be successful. It's the same advice I'd give to an individual: most of what determines your outcomes is within your control....and success very strongly favors those who genuinely understand and embrace that.

There's a reason that the great Steven Covey made this his first "Habit of Highly Successful People."

 

[iuwclurker1]

With all due respect, and speaking as a fellow contractor and fellow Republican, I really don't think the occupant in the White House at any given time has too much direct impact on your top (or bottom) line.

My company had two atrocious consecutive years during the Obama administration -- 2011 and 2012. As any responsible manager should and would do, I spent a lot of time and effort evaluating what had gone wrong and what could be done (or not done) to improve our results going forward. Some of this I did on my own, some of it I sought sound outside counsel, some of it I did collaboratively with key people in the organization. I can assure you that at no time did I think or say "It's because of that SOB Obama!"

Granted, every business (and individual) has to deal with circumstances beyond their control. And, to be sure, the macro conditions in the construction sectors we operate in were really bad in that period. But we still were able to identify things within our control that we could focus on to rebound -- which we successfully did, even while market conditions remained soft. As such, here in the last year of Obama's tenure, we're on the verge of having the best year we've ever had -- in terms of EBITDA, anyway.

If you're always looking for externalities (be it politicians, competitors, market conditions, etc.) to blame for not meeting your goals, you'll probably struggle to be successful. It's the same advice I'd give to an individual: most of what determines your outcomes is within your control....and success very strongly favors those who genuinely understand and embrace that.

There's a reason that the great Steven Covey made this his first "Habit of Highly Successful People."

Truth meet Pragmatism. Kudos.

 

[baileyiu]

Some of you still do not get it. Even if I agree with you on certain points, there is only so much of this type of crap I am going to be willing to take before I push back.

There seems to be this mindset among way too many of you liberal guys/gals that everyone has to agree with you on every single issue. And not only do they have to agree with you, if they do not, they are deplorable, or "dumb little monkeys", or -ists, or -phobes.

News flash, there are quite a few people who are receptive to Democrats on economics but who are not totally on board with where you guys want to push things socially. And many of those types reside in blue collar, union households.

For an anecdote, saw a post from some guy on Facebook yesterday that he was being driven around the airport by a 69 year old lady. He was a young African American male. He said he had a nice conversation with the lady, they shared about their lives, she complimented the sweater he was wearing. He got the talk to politics and asked how she voted. She said she was a Democrat normally but she went Trump this time because she felt things needed a shake up. He said in his post that it must be nice to put the things he felt were important as secondary so she could vote for economics because "white privelege". It took another person to point out that a 69 year old lady who was still humping it everyday might have her own problems and that instead of criticizing they could seek to find out how to understand where she was coming from.

So here is a clearly non racist woman who gets thrown into a "deplorable" category for having the audacity to vote for her interests. The problem that the loudest voices on the left have is not your views (even though I disagree with many of them), it is the way you act towards people who do not hold your views.

All those Dumb Monkeys just gave you a poke in the eye. Maybe instead of doubling down on what pissed them off in the first place, you could look in the mirror and figure out what you need to change.

This door swings both ways! Conservatives & Pres Elect Trump did everything they could to divide people. NO ONE called people names more than Trump - not even close!

 

[iuwclurker1]

This door swings both ways! Conservatives & Pres Elect Trump did everything they could to divide people. NO ONE called people names more than Trump - not even close!

Yup, looks like Trump's forked tongue was the perfect salve for IUCrazy's butthurt.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Who would have thought she would lose all those states?

Well, I didn't think she'd lose all of them. In fact, that's why I (especially after seeing exit poll data) remained certain during election night that she'd win. It's hard to run the table on something.

But I wasn't the least bit surprised she lost some of them -- and, even in some of the states she won (like MN), that she significantly underperformed Obama.

I forget who it was early in the general election campaign season who wrote that Hillary shouldn't be happy that she drew Trump as an opponent....because the typical playbook of running against most any generic Republican candidate was largely useless. It's not just that Trump could get away with certain things that a traditional politician couldn't, but that his appeal was specifically tailored to exploit a growing disconnect between blue-collar folks and a Democratic Party that had (a) become more defined by cultural issues and racial politics, and (b) gotten cozier with Wall Street, the Tech industry, etc.

I don't think Ted Cruz or John Kasich could've successfully made that appeal -- or would've even tried.

I think she ran against him the best way she could have -- to sow doubt about his fitness for the presidency, etc. But I don't think she was at all prepared to defend against his appeal to what has long been a core Democratic constituency. For her to have done so, it would've been costly -- for instance, I don't think she was about to start sounding her own hawkish notes on illegal immigration.

 

[Morrison]

Just as Goat pointed out, Clinton lost the election because her campaign forgot about the union voter in the Midwest. It's really a case of allowing the analytics crowd to drown out the baseball men. Ed Rendell had been warning the campaign for months of the appeal that Trump's message has with working class and rural Pennsylvanians.

Clinton put too much faith in Robbie Mook, who was backed by Obama's demographics expert, David Pflouff. Demographics and an over reliance on early voting, only take you so far. The working class voter decides every election, and they always vote for who they would like to have a beer with. That's a shame, because Hillary should have captured this crowd over Trump.

All the way out in Cali, I was concerned about Wisconsin and Michigan leading up to the election. I was shocked the campaign had Bernie in Iowa and Nevada a few days before the vote, but wrote it off as the campaign must have some strong internal polling in those two states, to justify ignoring them until the very end. They thought disaffected Republicans would make up for some bleeding of working class voters. They were wrong, and losing the election because of Wisconsin, Ohio, and Michigan cuts especially deep. They also miscalculated that not enough people would actually vote for an unhinged sociopath, so they felt free to gamble and expand the map, while their own house was on fire.

Since it's never too early to look to the next election, the Democrats better get to appointing a progressive as the new DNC chair. No more playing cute with Wall Street and Republican cross-over voters. We need to identify and prepare our short bench of candidates to run against Trump, and get them out there taking back the hearts of the working class very soon. No honeymoon for Trump, just as there would have been none for Clinton.

I like Tim Kaine personally, but the Democrats need to nominate a progressive in the worst way next cycle. Elizabeth Warren, Tim Ryan, Corey Booker, Martin O'Malley.

It's only a temporary setback. I just pray that Trump doesn't get us into something we cant get out of, with his ignorant arrogance. Or, he actually is so indebted to Russian banks or Putin, that he does their bidding.

 

[IUCrazy2]

10 reasons for liberals to let go of the panic button

Summer before last, I took Trump seriously before almost evveryone here. Check back to my posts if you don't remember. I studied him carefully. The first thing that stood out was that he was more nuanced than people noticed. He didn't emphasize or defend his nuance because his MO was creating conflict to earn free media. His naunce flew by most people. People like Zeke are too flustered and flummoxed to open their eyes to this, but he's our president now, so he deserves a blank planchet to start out with.

1. Trump is a first-class negotiator. His saying that he'll keep everything on the table is smart. He won't nuke anyone, but he'll keep our "enemies" in fear that he might.

2. Trump will improve our trade deals and leverage the Chinese good and hard on their currency manipulation. This is good for America.

3. Trump is not sexist. Actions speak louder than words. He hired a woman to run an entire project in male-dominated construction in NYC. He's hired many women eecutives. He turned his campaign around this summer by hiring a woman to run it. His "objectifing" woman, scaling their beauty 1 to 10, is really not anything the rest of us don't do. We all judge and evaluate people's attractiveness and relatve beauty. The difference is, Trump vocalizes it in a way many people find politically incorrect. Actions speak louder than words. Similarly, he's not racist or xenophobic. That's just part of his make-America-great-again schtick. If you want to slam him for partisan reasons, have at it. If you just care about women and minorities, R-E-L-A-X.

4. Trump wants to improve inner cities. Kudos.

5. Washington will be marked by constructivism rather than obstructionism for the next four years. That's good for the country no matter the reason.

6. Obamacare will get defunded but the health care movement has made irrevocable steps forward. It will be hard for Congress to dump 20 million people off the health insurance registers.

7. Trump wants to spend money on infrastructure. Good for the United States even if it's infuriating that Congress obstructed Obama on this.

8. Trump, for all his bluster, is far more pragmatic than ideological. That's probably why it's hard to pin him down on stances but it's good. Ideology, both liberal and conservative, is fundamentally an idee fixe trap and as such anti-science. Trump may not appear to be be akin to Bill Nye, but pragmatism is a step in the right direction from where our politics are now.

9. Trump has made a grand promise to a lot of blue-collar whites. Nothing that he says is likely to actually help them. That's not beneficial for the country but it will swing things back to the Democrats when they realize his promises were hot air.

10. Trump vividly exposed a known but unexploited, boiling, pus-filled mudpot of a weak spot in liberal orthodoxy -- playing the victim card loses the game. It's finally time to focus on lending a hand rather than giving a hand-out. Finally time to realize that inhumanity in the guise of humanity is inhumanity. (I know, you don't want to hear this...)

The two losses for liberals in this election are the SC and the glass ceiling for women (that's not just for liberals). So be it. I'm banking on Trump being a good president.

W.T.F.

Not about what you posted because I actually agree with you. But where the heck was this for the past few months when you were calling anyone that could support Trump every single name in the book? And then you turn around and post something like this giving 10 valid reasons why someone might take a look and be ok.

Your posting is schizophrenic. Almost like your account is run by 2 totally different people.

And despite our differences and your shot at me above, this is not meant as an attack. Just wondering where that introspection has been at.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Truth meet Pragmatism. Kudos.

Well, I've always said that I'm a lot more pragmatic than I might come across.

But one thing I'd emphasize about what I wrote there.....the very same principle holds true for people as it does for organizations. Far too many people these days cite externalities of one kind or another as reasons for their plight. I certainly wouldn't say there's never any cause to do that. But, hell, I've known people battling terminal cancer who absolutely refused to let that define and dictate whatever life they had left. And if anybody ever had cause to blame everything bad in their life on circumstances beyond their control, it's them.

"So are you blaming poor people for being poor?!?!?"

Not necessarily. But I am saying that virtually anybody can improve their prospects and fortunes by way of their own actions, choices, and behaviors -- and that most people who look externally to explain their problems will likely also look externally for solutions.....and I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of such people will still be doing that on their dying day. And I think that's both sad and infuriating.

What's particularly maddening about it, though, is that I think this poisonous mindset is more often promoted than discouraged today.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

It's going to be a while before we really piece together exactly why Trump won. And the answer will involve a lot of different moving parts. The black and Hispanic vote didn't go for Hillary as much as it did for Obama. Trump turned several blue rural counties red. Polling location closures in Arizona hurt Democratic turnout. Etc.

But not every cause is equal. If minorities had voted for Hillary the same as they did for Obama in Florida, it wouldn't have made a difference. The urban/rural divide is real, but it's not exactly new. And even if more people in Maricopa County voted, it probably wouldn't have flipped Arizona to Hillary.

One big cause of this loss, though, the one I'd argue was determinative, was the defection of blue collar white labor from the Democratic party in the rust belt. Overall, 49% of voters in union households went for Trump, an historically high number. And, honestly, we should have seen it coming.

Back in January, the Democrats were warned that Trump was killing it with union workers in the Midwest. And while very few Democrats in recent decades can claim to be die-hard friends of labor, this is a type of baggage that would be especially heavy for the Clinton camp, which had already given us one President that unions weren't exactly wild for. And again, the warning signs were there, even last year:

I was in northeast Ohio on a mission to find out how organized labor is feeling these days about Hillary Clinton. Seven years ago, Clinton captured a majority of union households in Ohio, en route to a 10-point primary victory against Barack Obama. In Lorain County, her margin was even more resounding: 57-to-41.

At this fundraiser, however, skepticism toward Clinton was definitely in the air. Of the nine union members I interviewed, just one was supporting her. (Four were undecided, three were backing Bernie Sanders, and one was leaning toward Marco Rubio.) Some associated her with the unpopular trade policies of her husband. Others said she had been tainted by controversy, past and present. Most questioned her commitment to labor.

“I think Hillary says the right things,” said Jim Slone, head of the Lorain County UAW’s political action committee. (Slone voted for Clinton in 2008.) “I don’t think she really believes in all those things.”​

And now, with 20/20 hindsight, we can see how even the primary results foretold this problem. There was a candidate, after all, who wasn't considered a serious threat at first to the Clinton inevitability, and he was scoffed at as unelectable by Democrats and Republicans alike. But there's one thing you couldn't call him: unpopular with union voters. While national leaders were getting behind Hillary early, Bernie was cleaning up with the locals.

All of this culminated in what, until yesterday, many considered the most stunning upset in recent political memory: Bernie's victory in the Michigan primary. But here's the thing. Two other states Bernie significantly outperformed his polling in? Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. In each state, depending on the polls you look at, he outperformed by at least mid-to-high single digits, if not low double digits.

Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania. The three states that, effectively, just made Trump our next President. Something was going on in those states during the primary season that the polls didn't pick up on. Something was still going on in those states during the general that the polls didn't pick up on.

Now, I'm trying my best not to go full "I told you so" to my fellow Democrats quite yet. Give them time to digest what just happened. But, for all the talk of electability, it turns out that Bernie was the electable one, for one simple reason: he was the one Democrat speaking the populist message that resonated with rust belt labor, a constituency that, once upon a time, was such an important part of the Democratic coalition. A constituency that abandoned Hillary just enough to cost her the White House.

We've talked a lot about where the GOP goes post-Trump. But now that the Dems are firmly in a minority opposition role for at least two years (and probably longer), it's time to flip that question around. The party needs to find a way to repair its relationship with labor. An endorsement from SEIU or UAW national leadership looks great, but it doesn't mean anything if the actual members don't want to vote for you. It's time for the party to take a long look in the mirror. And, while I don't expect Bernie himself to run again in 2020, Democrats need to look at his message and his strategy, and come to grips with the fact that his against-the-current campaign was the only one that got labor voters excited. They need to make some changes fast, or the Midwest might turn red for a generation.

I've been voting Democrat since 2012 when the GOP fully jumped the shark for me. It's now, more than ever, a fractured confederacy of evangelists, tea party dumbasses, Reagan Republicans, libertarians, and now alt-righters.

Unfortunately, the Democratic party is now likely to move much further left down the spectrum and I can't follow them.

I desperately needed to have a Clinton blowout to implode the GOP and make it start anew again. Instead, the GOP will think they've got the secret sauce and keep business as usual and once again I'm partyless.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

When Reagan won in 80', many union families voted for him. My family at the time had at least 5 members that were old school, union men working for Ford Motor Co. in Louisville. My great grandfather, grandfather, and uncle, voted Republican for the first time in decades that election. The point being, when Republican presidents are elected, they almost always do very well with union men and women.

I'm a painting contractor and I witnessed my gross sales go from 130k throughout the Bush years, shrink to under 100k in sales throughout the Obama years. We took it on the chin during the Obama presidency from a gross sales standpoint. The commercial painting jobs dried up.

In the end, as a small business owner, I was forced to vote my pocket book and it was considerably lighter these last few years of Obama.

Have you done introspection and research to determine why sales went down during the Obama years?

I hope you remember the economy that Obama inherited.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

But isn't it about turn out. I would bet that a lot of the people that didn't vote would have preferred Hillary, but they didn't vote. Maybe the problem is that she had too many flaws or people didn't believe her, so they didn't vote at all. It isn't that the Democrats had abandoned them or forgot them, but rather THE Democrat, Hillary, didn't excite them enough to vote.

He's saying turnout is a symptom of the problem ...not THE problem.

 

[IUCrazy2]

This door swings both ways! Conservatives & Pres Elect Trump did everything they could to divide people. NO ONE called people names more than Trump - not even close!

Sigh.

Listen guys, if you think Trump was not a fork in the eye of the GOP too, you are not paying attention. They did bupkus for the past 8 years. And they did it because they always moved the goal post on those of us who voted for them. We need the House. They got it...well we cannot do anything without the Senate. They got it. Well that Obama just blocks everything, we need the White House. Well you got all 3 and will be able to keep the court at 5-4. Results fellas. They are expected. Tick rock.

I expect, nay, demand that Trump continue to go out to the black community and engage them in the same manner he did with the "what have you got to lose" line. Set up Jack Kemp economic zones in black communities and try and get those folks some jobs. I want the billions of dollars sitting overseas back here helping put all those rust belt people back to work too.

I think many of you are flat out wrong on how you view the world but I want all of us to succeed. I don't want Trump to say, "I won", I want him and the Republicans to do something that will be positive for all of us.

 

[iuwclurker1]

W.T.F.

Not about what you posted because I actually agree with you. But where the heck was this for the past few months when you were calling anyone that could support Trump every single name in the book? And then you turn around and post something like this giving 10 valid reasons why someone might take a look and be ok.

Your posting is schizophrenic. Almost like your account is run by 2 totally different people.

You maybe didn't notice my posts about Trump a year and a half ago. My main concern with Trump has been his fingers on the codes. I'm still not 100% certain he's not a freakjob. Ima hopin anda prayin. My main desire for Hillary was that I wanted the galss ceiling broken for the country's long-term good, the SC, and because I think Hillary is a far more sensible candidate.

Other than that, I quickly got over the shock of Trump's victory and took an optimistic view. Plain and simple. My post above assumes Trump isn't the half-cocked lunatic he pretended to be most of the campaign. That's a mighty big assumption. Then again, we all know he's a pathological liar, so shouldn't we also assume he's lying about the stuff that scares us?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I've been voting Democrat since 2012 when the GOP fully jumped the shark for me. It's now, more than ever, a fractured confederacy of evangelists, tea party dumbasses, Reagan Republicans, libertarians, and now alt-righters.

Unfortunately, the Democratic party is now likely to move much further left down the spectrum and I can't follow them.

I desperately needed to have a Clinton blowout to implode the GOP and make it start anew again. Instead, the GOP will think they've got the secret sauce and keep business as usual and once again I'm partyless.

1) Why do you have to have a party?

2) The reformation of the GOP has been going on for a while now. Now, I can certainly understand that it may not be to your liking. But, if you (and others like you) left the party, surely you wouldn't expect that this would result in it taking a form that was more to your liking. Leaving any organization is never an effective way to influence its direction. It's certainly always one's prerogative, of course. When the Jim Jeffords', Linc Chafees, and Arlen Specters of the world left the GOP, what effect on the party do you think that had (if any)? I don't think it was to move it leftward.

While I'm certainly reticent about Trump and what kind of impacts his victory will have on the party, most of us who remain active in it have been trying to get it to become more reliably conservative. I tend towards the libertarian side of things -- but I have few qualms about the Reagan blueprint (aside from the belief that we should always be juicing the defense budget). I've never considered myself a Tea Partier...but I have plenty of sympathy for their basic cause.

Once we get our nation's fiscal house in a workable order -- if we do, and I have my doubts -- then we can reevaluate things. But, until that time, the country needs a Republican Party that is just as tight-fisted as it can responsibly be.

 

[iuwclurker1]

But one thing I'd emphasize about what I wrote there.....the very same principle holds true for people as it does for organizations.

Yes, I didn't overlook that.

What's particularly maddening about it, though, is that I think this poisonous mindset is more often promoted than discouraged today.

Right. That's the liberal mudpot I referred to above. Playing the victim card. Here's the pragmatic (partisan) reason why that's a losing hand for liberals -- victims are in apathy, at least to some degree, so they're far less likely to vote.

 

[iuwclurker1]

Right. That's the liberal mudpot I referred to above. Playing the victim card. Here's the pragmatic (partisan) reason why that's a losing hand for liberals -- victims are in apathy, at least to some degree, so they're far less likely to vote.

Of course, the insidious, societal reason why the victim card is a losing hand is that they're fostering apathy. Hence, the inhumanity.

Liberals are the last ones willing to consider the inhumanity of their best intentions. It's vicious circle.