When I think of Clinton, I think of Iraq, Libya, an eight figure speaking tour on the eve of declaring her candidacy with no transcripts, the repeal of Glass Steagall, Wall Street, the Clinton Foundation, and a host of other negatives.
I supported Obama in the 2008 primaries as an alternative to Clinton. In the general election, I supported him because I viewed McCain as an empty suit and that VP choice was preposterous. I supported Obama for re-election because he dodged a Great Depression.
In 2016 I supported Sanders, and could not support Clinton for the 2008 reasons, plus, the gross actions of the DNC. She gave me no reason to support her other than the fact she was not Trump. Not good enough. In Vermont, my vote pretty much didn't matter anyway, so I voted Trump.
It has nothing to do with Hillary being a woman. It had a lot to do with the idea that she was given opportunities as a former First Lady. A real woman candidate makes it totally on their own. And I think political dynastic families are bad for the country, be they Kennedys, Bushes or Clintons.
And I think the Access Hollywood tape was dirty play. In my career, I have been on the air several times, and all kinds of nonsense occurs in air checks that are off the air. Reagan once joked that he was launching an attack on the USSR. Somebody at NBC combed through their archive of air checks and recordings to find the one that made Trump look at his worst. Wonder who was behind that?
1
Does specifically picking Scranton as an example showing Obama's strength with white voters make sense, considering Biden's presence on the ballot? It seems like we should be eliminating it from the samples for the 2008 and 2012 elections.
My cousin in north Florida - Trump country, apparently - told me before the election that "this time" the (white) evangelicals were going to turn out (for Trump). This time, as opposed to last time, when Obama's opponent was Mitt Romney. Why would evangelicals object to Mitt Romney? Wild guessing here, but how about religious prejudice against him because he was Mormon? With Trump, particularly because he had evangelical Mike Pence on the ticket, evangelical turnout could go into high gear.
5
How Did Donald Trump Win Over So Many Obama Voters?
Because Clinton was a profoundly flawed candidate with a tractor trailer load of real baggage. Anyone else against Trump (ahem, Sanders) and Trump would very likely have lost, perhaps even by a double digit margin.
Because Clinton was a profoundly flawed candidate with a tractor trailer load of real baggage. Anyone else against Trump (ahem, Sanders) and Trump would very likely have lost, perhaps even by a double digit margin.
8
My sentiments exactly. I did not vote for him, I couldn't I voted for her because it was perhaps history in the making and in NY my vote didn't matter. But the DNC had a very viable candidate but they decided she deserved it. Bottom line is both candidates approval numbers were dismal I think the Clinton camp thought she was a shoe in. They assumed too much I think. In the end it was hubris that did her in, that and that horrid line about deplorable. Right up there with her Benghazi remark.
3
My contribution would be to add this analysis from over at the Post. Found it interesting -
Why down-ballot Democrats could be in the minority for years to come
http://wpo.st/FQRI2
Why down-ballot Democrats could be in the minority for years to come
http://wpo.st/FQRI2
I grew up in PA and now live in WI. I'm having a very hard time accepting what your graph is showing me. We have white, middle class working folks that are PO'ed all over the country. We have the race factor all over the country. We have a certain percentage of males in this country who would not vote for a woman for president. What I can't fathom is why they are all in the upper midwest?
Take MN for example. Hillary was ahead in the polls by a huge margin but only won by a hair. Why? MN is always a win for Democrats and I can't see them going for a city slicker. Something is screwed up here and we don't yet know what it is. Might be true in other states as well.
Take MN for example. Hillary was ahead in the polls by a huge margin but only won by a hair. Why? MN is always a win for Democrats and I can't see them going for a city slicker. Something is screwed up here and we don't yet know what it is. Might be true in other states as well.
5
Could Mr. Cohn provide the data he used to support the assertion that "millions of white working-class voters across the United States voted for Obama and then switched to Trump"?
It seems that a number of other writers have attributed this statement to Mr. Cohn, but I have yet to see the data behind this assertion. Without the data this assertion is nothing more than fake news.
It seems that a number of other writers have attributed this statement to Mr. Cohn, but I have yet to see the data behind this assertion. Without the data this assertion is nothing more than fake news.
4
I believe you are completely misreading the data. Donald Trump did not win over the Barack Obama voters. The electorate was a different group of people. I have no evidence for this, but it appears that people who did not vote for Barack Obama in 2012 voted in 2016 for Donald Trump and people who voted for Barack Obama in 2012 did not vote in 2016 (at least for President). Just looking at Northern Maine tells you this story. Maine has consistently high turnout and the data you present shows it went up. The data I have seen for Maine is that 50,000 less people voted for Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump than voted in our two congressional races. I have not found state turnout for 2016 yet, but 755,000 voted on our highest voter garnering ballot initiative vs the presidential total of 741,550.
You need to take off your lens of what you think the data says and analyze what it is actually saying.
You need to take off your lens of what you think the data says and analyze what it is actually saying.
2
But you are doing the same thing. You are making assertions without the data?
1
Fleeting impressions, lies, distortions, pandering, misjudgment, ignorance, innocence, bigotry, our concatenation of irrationality, superficiality and failure to discern the content and character of a candidate give us men like Trump. The absence of information and discerning appraisal of character gave us Trump. He lies, deceives, cheats, disguises and is a completely untrustworthy manipulator who is in the game to make money for himself and get away with big lies, distortions, hatred and bigotry. His MO should disqualify him but it did not. Why are our fellow citizens so incapable of seeing a fraud for what he is? Mislead by distortions, propaganda, bigotry and irrationality our democracy is imperiled and impaled at death's doorstep and no one declares our democracy dead. Why have we failed each other so tragically. The 1/2%rs and their paid apologists hide in plain sight further modifications in our tax laws that will shift the burden of paying for a bloated national budget to those who can least afford it while their take is augmented. We are in a terrible crisis and who is sounding the alarm? Trump will enrich the upper crust and exploit all of the rest of us and we are complicit. What folly...what hell have we created through our ignorance and bigotry. We have been misled by Christians opposed to abortion sending us all to hell with the election of a selfish tyrant. Where is social justice served with such an outcome?
5
On the question of why Trump did better than expected among Hispanics, I think many analysts missed the fact that Trump's call for mass deportation of undocumented immigrants, especially Mexicans, cut two ways for legal Hispanic immigrants (who are the ones who can vote).
On the one hand, they might resent the ethnic stereotypes used by Trump (Mexicans are rapists, drug runners, etc.). But on the other hand, many might feel they managed to immigrate and get citizenship legally so why can't the "illegals?" Second, many might look at their own interest in that they, possibly more than anyone else, are the ones who are competing most directly for the jobs and housing that go to undocumented immigrants.
Looking at Hispanics as a monolithic block who must always put their ethnic identity ahead of their own economic interests is easy for people who don't talk with actual working and middle class Hispanics. Unfortunately, many local Hispanic political leaders and leaders of many Hispanic advocacy groups, who have an interest in emphasizing ethnic identity politics over broader economic or class interests, often encourage such misconceptions.
Over-reliance on ethnic or racial identity compared to economic and class factors by pollsters, political strategists and journalists probably explains much of why they got things so spectacularly wrong in this election. Get out and talk to regular people and you might see that they are more than one dimensional stereotypes.
On the one hand, they might resent the ethnic stereotypes used by Trump (Mexicans are rapists, drug runners, etc.). But on the other hand, many might feel they managed to immigrate and get citizenship legally so why can't the "illegals?" Second, many might look at their own interest in that they, possibly more than anyone else, are the ones who are competing most directly for the jobs and housing that go to undocumented immigrants.
Looking at Hispanics as a monolithic block who must always put their ethnic identity ahead of their own economic interests is easy for people who don't talk with actual working and middle class Hispanics. Unfortunately, many local Hispanic political leaders and leaders of many Hispanic advocacy groups, who have an interest in emphasizing ethnic identity politics over broader economic or class interests, often encourage such misconceptions.
Over-reliance on ethnic or racial identity compared to economic and class factors by pollsters, political strategists and journalists probably explains much of why they got things so spectacularly wrong in this election. Get out and talk to regular people and you might see that they are more than one dimensional stereotypes.
8
Maybe he didn't have more votes - I think Halderman makes a good argument for checking ballot integrity. https://medium.com/@jhalderm/want-to-know-if-the-election-was-hacked-loo...
Ya shoulda gave me Bernie. There's somebody I coulda vote for. By the way, I told you this, thousands of times, right here in the Comments section, in the months before the election. Over and over and over. -- Did I say "I?" I meant "we."
4
Sorry, if you had read this article you would see that Bernie not only did not address the white working class well either and the Republicans had plenty of dirt on him as well. He would not have not have won.
http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044
http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044
4
I just love how The Upshot has gotten all analytically clever since completely blowing their pre-election predictions and analysis. Do you have no shame at all??
7
I just love how people who have no idea what they are talking about criticize the efforts of others to understand the world.
4
Excellent analysis. One thing that surprised me that you did not touch on was the element that gender played. Among working-class whites, particularly white men, it would be interesting to know how much the gender issue informed their vote. From the reports I have read it seems like the gender gap played in Donald Trump'a favor.
As we must always remember, the electoral college is also a complete distortion of the popular vote. Clinton will have ended up winning it by roughly 2,000,000, easily the largest margin in the history of this country for a "losing" candidate. As well, even in an election where the electoral college and the popular vote are in accord, we live in a very strange system where a state like Wyoming or Vermont has their votes count 4.5 times as much as a state like California. Hardly democratic…
As we must always remember, the electoral college is also a complete distortion of the popular vote. Clinton will have ended up winning it by roughly 2,000,000, easily the largest margin in the history of this country for a "losing" candidate. As well, even in an election where the electoral college and the popular vote are in accord, we live in a very strange system where a state like Wyoming or Vermont has their votes count 4.5 times as much as a state like California. Hardly democratic…
6
The U. S. is a republic.
4
We are supposed to be a democratic republic. Not a rotten borough republic.
5
This analysis is helpful because it brings the focus to the handful of states that decided the election - those Clinton was expected to win but did not. To emphasize - the millions of people across the country who voted for Obama but not for Clinton do not matter, because Clinton won the popular vote. It remains to be seen from deeper analysis of the several states that matter how much of their outcomes were due to the white working class backlash and how much to other factors, such as voter suppression and disgruntled Sanders supporters who sat out the election.
3
In 2012 Gary Johnson got 50,000 votes in PA. He was a fringe candidate that got virtually no coverage. In 2016 he got 150,000 votes. Jill Stein went from 20k votes in PA to 50k. "Other" went from 10 to 20k. The state was supposed to be "safe blue" until a week before the election. I can't believe a confluence of the promotion of 3rd party candidates along with the relentless drumbeat of false equivalence and wildly incorrect polling made for the perfect storm, not Clinton's "weakness" as a candidate.
3
It's so simple. Who did Obama help in his 8 yrs in office? The 1 percent. The liberal left academic elites who believe that free speech is dead, those on Medicaid who now get free insurance thanks to us taxpayers. No one else.
8
The accrual of all the domestic benefits of technological change, free trade and globalization to the elite is NOT due to Obama, but to the Republican Congress who refused to do anything against the interests of their plutocratic masters.
10
Anita! Take your head out of the sand and pay attention to history and timelines, please!
Obama inherited the recession. He was inaugurated as it was sliding to the bottom. He did not cause it. The tax policies that shifted wealth to the top 1 percent were put in place during the Bush administration. Medicaid was instituted during the Johnson administration.
Obama inherited the recession. He was inaugurated as it was sliding to the bottom. He did not cause it. The tax policies that shifted wealth to the top 1 percent were put in place during the Bush administration. Medicaid was instituted during the Johnson administration.
9
A lot of people who are decidedly not in the top 1% of American income did very well from 2008-2016. If you are living in a small Midwestern town with a shuttered factory and waiting for the hand of God to bring back local jobs, it's not going to happen, but it has nothing to do with Obama.
4
The Democrats have been losing support since they stopped arguing for a left vision of the future and moved to the "center." Moving to the center is essentially moving to the right. Both Republicans and the activist Left took it as capitulation, with the Republicans arguing ever harder for handouts for the "job creators" (who keep firing everyone), and the activist Left giving up on them and working outside the system.
The movement to the center also left few in the media arguing forcefully for the views of the Left. If one side is arguing forcefully for the Right, and the other side is hiding in the center, trying not insult anyone, the entire argumatn moves to the right.
Occupy was able to shift the country back a bit (working outside of the system) and made room for movements like Fight for Fifteen and Black Lives Matter. It also provided organizers that helped Bernie get to within striking distance of Clinton. But of course the DNC rejected Bernie's forceful attack on the establishment and his loud embrace of Left ideals. Clinton called his proposals, which are standard operating procedure in most industrial countries, "pie in the sky."
And once in office both Clinton and Obama governed from the center right, with policies aimed more at mollifying Republicans, which of course never works, since they always see that as a sign of weakness to be exploited.
So, relying on attacking Trump, Clinton laid out no Left vision, just said change is bad, in a change driven election.
The movement to the center also left few in the media arguing forcefully for the views of the Left. If one side is arguing forcefully for the Right, and the other side is hiding in the center, trying not insult anyone, the entire argumatn moves to the right.
Occupy was able to shift the country back a bit (working outside of the system) and made room for movements like Fight for Fifteen and Black Lives Matter. It also provided organizers that helped Bernie get to within striking distance of Clinton. But of course the DNC rejected Bernie's forceful attack on the establishment and his loud embrace of Left ideals. Clinton called his proposals, which are standard operating procedure in most industrial countries, "pie in the sky."
And once in office both Clinton and Obama governed from the center right, with policies aimed more at mollifying Republicans, which of course never works, since they always see that as a sign of weakness to be exploited.
So, relying on attacking Trump, Clinton laid out no Left vision, just said change is bad, in a change driven election.
11
It is not strategy, it was the message and Hillary was not paying attention.
Chris Arnade in The Guardian on 3 November
"America has changed fundamentally over the last 35 years, and I saw and heard the impact of those changes...
The early Trump voters I met were the losers from these changes. Their once superior status – based only on being white – was being dismantled, while their lack of education was also being punished. They lived in towns and communities devastated by economic upheaval. They were born in them and stayed in them, despite their fall. For many, who had focused on their community over career, it felt like their entire world was collapsing."
http://tinyurl.com/op4ckhl
Glen Greenwald also figured it out and writes in the aftermath what the NYC and DC Media still has yet to understand.
"Instead of acknowledging and addressing the fundamental flaws within themselves, [elites] are devoting their energies to demonizing the victims of their corruption, all in order to delegitimize those grievances and thus relieve themselves of responsibility to meaningfully address them. That reaction only serves to bolster, if not vindicate, the animating perceptions that these elite institutions are hopelessly self-interested, toxic, and destructive and thus cannot be reformed but rather must be destroyed. That, in turn, only ensures there will be many more Brexits, and Trumps, in our collective future."
http://tinyurl.com/ok3c4fd
Chris Arnade in The Guardian on 3 November
"America has changed fundamentally over the last 35 years, and I saw and heard the impact of those changes...
The early Trump voters I met were the losers from these changes. Their once superior status – based only on being white – was being dismantled, while their lack of education was also being punished. They lived in towns and communities devastated by economic upheaval. They were born in them and stayed in them, despite their fall. For many, who had focused on their community over career, it felt like their entire world was collapsing."
http://tinyurl.com/op4ckhl
Glen Greenwald also figured it out and writes in the aftermath what the NYC and DC Media still has yet to understand.
"Instead of acknowledging and addressing the fundamental flaws within themselves, [elites] are devoting their energies to demonizing the victims of their corruption, all in order to delegitimize those grievances and thus relieve themselves of responsibility to meaningfully address them. That reaction only serves to bolster, if not vindicate, the animating perceptions that these elite institutions are hopelessly self-interested, toxic, and destructive and thus cannot be reformed but rather must be destroyed. That, in turn, only ensures there will be many more Brexits, and Trumps, in our collective future."
http://tinyurl.com/ok3c4fd
11
It was this type of gross speculation without a shread of evidence that led these "analysts"" haha to put it a 84 5 probability that Clinton would ber elected, and even before that the claim that Trump could not get the nomination. There is a reason the polls were flawed and the silly models were wrong: you cannot lump opinion polls by different organizations to be anything but : garbage in, garbage out. These " analysts" need to find real jobs; who will ever believe any of their speculation again?
3
Hillary won the popular vote. So this discussion is beside the point. She would be President-elect today, were it not for the archaic Electoral College.
Speaking of which, the "Crosscheck" computer program selectively suppressed Democratic votes in crucial Electoral College states. It flagged people with the same or similar name who are registered in two states, ignoring differences such as Jr. vs. Senior, middle names, and Social Security numbers. Those votes likely won't be counted until after DT's inauguration.
I'm a lot more interested in Crosscheck and known Russian hacking into US voter registration databases than I am in what Hillary "should" have said to secure an even greater majority of American votes.
Speaking of which, the "Crosscheck" computer program selectively suppressed Democratic votes in crucial Electoral College states. It flagged people with the same or similar name who are registered in two states, ignoring differences such as Jr. vs. Senior, middle names, and Social Security numbers. Those votes likely won't be counted until after DT's inauguration.
I'm a lot more interested in Crosscheck and known Russian hacking into US voter registration databases than I am in what Hillary "should" have said to secure an even greater majority of American votes.
9
Educate yourself . If we didn't have electoral votes there would be no need for smaller states to vote.Only states like California would count read why we have the Electoral
9
Donna, you should educate *yourself.* There are millions of Republicans in NY and millions of Democrats in TX. Eliminating the electoral college would not give either party a massive advantage.
6
Donna, this is not correct. States like California count more than states like Alaska in both popular votes and Electoral Votes, and rightly so, because they have a larger population. In fact, Electoral Votes are proportional to a state's population, therefore your argument is invalid. The main problem is that, with the exception of Maine and Nebraska, in each state the 100% of Electoral Votes go either GOP or Dem. In poor words, it doesn't matter if a party wins California with 50,1% or 99% of popular votes, it's gonna get 55 EV anyway! This systems generates misrepresentation.. Therefore it is unfair and wrong.
2
You're overlooking the elephant in the room (figuratively speaking only). Hillary Clinton is a woman. *That* was the difference in this election. All those white working class males could not see President Hillary Clinton returning salutes from the officers as she stepped off of Air Force One. They could not stand the idea of a woman being Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. They could not conceive that a woman would offer inspiration as she toured the battlefields.
On the other hand, Obama may have been black but he was male. Colin Powell blazed a trail for him on the race side. Some of this may have been conscious, but I believe that it was unconscious bias that swung this election. The outcome wasn't "inevitable" as pundits assert after every election. Hillary is a well-known hawk but she didn't sell it. Of course there were lots of other factors that played against her in the final weeks, many of which were in control of the campaign. But one hurdle they could not surmount was the role of gender stereotypes among the white male middle and lower class. But her candidacy has made a female president more likely. So, as the Cleveland Indians say, maybe next year.
On the other hand, Obama may have been black but he was male. Colin Powell blazed a trail for him on the race side. Some of this may have been conscious, but I believe that it was unconscious bias that swung this election. The outcome wasn't "inevitable" as pundits assert after every election. Hillary is a well-known hawk but she didn't sell it. Of course there were lots of other factors that played against her in the final weeks, many of which were in control of the campaign. But one hurdle they could not surmount was the role of gender stereotypes among the white male middle and lower class. But her candidacy has made a female president more likely. So, as the Cleveland Indians say, maybe next year.
19
The question should be: How Did The Democrats Alienate So Many Obama Voters?
The answer? By the Left repeatedly insisting their wonderful new world order of multiculturalism and globalization was the "right thing to do" (for who?) and that America's unemployed or under-employed citizens were just going to have to accept it.
Well, they didn't. Moreover, they certainly do not want be told they must by the smug condescending college-educated elite living in safe suburban communities and doorman buildings who not only would never dirty their hands by learning a trade, but look down at anyone who has.
This is all your fault, Lefties. Moderates who begged you to stop all the name-calling and instead listen to the concerns of working class people do not deserve to have to say "President Trump" for the next four years, but you do.
The answer? By the Left repeatedly insisting their wonderful new world order of multiculturalism and globalization was the "right thing to do" (for who?) and that America's unemployed or under-employed citizens were just going to have to accept it.
Well, they didn't. Moreover, they certainly do not want be told they must by the smug condescending college-educated elite living in safe suburban communities and doorman buildings who not only would never dirty their hands by learning a trade, but look down at anyone who has.
This is all your fault, Lefties. Moderates who begged you to stop all the name-calling and instead listen to the concerns of working class people do not deserve to have to say "President Trump" for the next four years, but you do.
16
Smug elites living in fancy buildings? Like Trump?
Trump and the GOP will do absolutely nothing for the working class, as usual. They got fooled.
Trump and the GOP will do absolutely nothing for the working class, as usual. They got fooled.
7
Say, maybe you guys should read the New York Times. There's a lot of interesting information in those articles. For example:
"While a clear majority of the state’s Latinos cast their votes for Clinton, plenty of others responded to Trump’s hostility toward undocumented immigrants. Every day “Contacto Directo” got versions of the same complaints from listeners: I waited so many years to be allowed to enter the United States; why should others get amnesty? I finally have my work permit; I don’t want an undocumented person to take my job for less money. “Maybe they’re even from the same country,” Rodríguez Tejera notes. Nationally, Pew Research Center reports that roughly a quarter of Hispanics favor building that big, beautiful wall."
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/20/magazine/donald-trumps-ame...®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront
"While a clear majority of the state’s Latinos cast their votes for Clinton, plenty of others responded to Trump’s hostility toward undocumented immigrants. Every day “Contacto Directo” got versions of the same complaints from listeners: I waited so many years to be allowed to enter the United States; why should others get amnesty? I finally have my work permit; I don’t want an undocumented person to take my job for less money. “Maybe they’re even from the same country,” Rodríguez Tejera notes. Nationally, Pew Research Center reports that roughly a quarter of Hispanics favor building that big, beautiful wall."
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/20/magazine/donald-trumps-ame...®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront
13
The whole immigration debate in this country is fake. If anyone really wanted to end illegal immigration, they would attack the demand for illegal immigrants. Who hires them? CEOs that want to pay less than the minimum wage, with no benefits, and who want to use the threat of illegals to scare citizens into demanding less for their labor.
Start jailing the people that hire illegal immigrants and soon none will be hired. Its an obvious solution that nobody that takes money from CEOs ever proposes.
Once the demand for illegals dries up, then you increase legal immigration. Legal immigrants get paid at a similar rate to citizens with the same benefits, so they do not compete so effectively for jobs. Yay! everyone goes home and gets on a line that doesn't take decades, and has actual rights when they get here.
This is the only viable solution, and that is why the Republicans propose a wall and the Democrats propose amnesty (yes a path to citizenship is amnesty). They don't want to solve the problem. That would be bad for donor profits. They want a fake debate that they can try to get elected on.
The same thing goes on with most of the mainstream debates. It is all farce and no action. Look at the debates. They barely mentioned any serious issue, with any serious solutions.
One clue: If the solution is based on supply, like the drug war, its not going to work. Despite the big equal sign, the economy is driven by demand, not supply. It is people that want something that moves it.
Start jailing the people that hire illegal immigrants and soon none will be hired. Its an obvious solution that nobody that takes money from CEOs ever proposes.
Once the demand for illegals dries up, then you increase legal immigration. Legal immigrants get paid at a similar rate to citizens with the same benefits, so they do not compete so effectively for jobs. Yay! everyone goes home and gets on a line that doesn't take decades, and has actual rights when they get here.
This is the only viable solution, and that is why the Republicans propose a wall and the Democrats propose amnesty (yes a path to citizenship is amnesty). They don't want to solve the problem. That would be bad for donor profits. They want a fake debate that they can try to get elected on.
The same thing goes on with most of the mainstream debates. It is all farce and no action. Look at the debates. They barely mentioned any serious issue, with any serious solutions.
One clue: If the solution is based on supply, like the drug war, its not going to work. Despite the big equal sign, the economy is driven by demand, not supply. It is people that want something that moves it.
12
Excellent analysis but with one exclusion. Hillary Clinton WON the popular vote by, at least, half a million. Once again we in New York, California, the Northeast and the entire West Coast have a president that we did not want, did not vote for. Had the electoral college been eliminated after the Bush debacle in 2000, Hillary Clinton would be our president. The analysis is of all these states with working class whites, uneducated whites, going for Trump. How about some analysis as to why Trump lost New York and California, lost all the educated voters?
11
According to exit polls which could well be wrong, 48 % of Trump white voters made over 1000,000 a year.
1
It's simply not true that we know Clinton would have won the election had the electoral college been eliminated since the campaign would have been so different. They would both be campaigning a lot more in California, Texas, New York -- and who knows what the result would have been. Maybe Trump would still have won. Anybody who says definitively that Clinton would definitely have won is being just as foolhardy as all the people who said Clinton would almost certainly be president a mere 8 days ago.
5
But as all of the Clintonistas kept saying abuot Bernie, we all knoew the rules when we started. The electoral college is 200 years old. The DNC knew it had to win there.
Winning the popular vote is a good talking point, but not a good excuse.
Winning the popular vote is a good talking point, but not a good excuse.
4
Now the DNC is considering selecting Congressman Ellison as their leader. I guess the Democrats want to lose the next election too. Trump supporters want less incursion of the Muslims into this country, not more....
2
Racism is not one dimensional. It's very possible that someone might be OK with blacks, but thinks Mexicans are rapists or Muslims are terrorists. Thus an Obama voter might very well vote for Trump out of racism.
I am inclined to believe that racism was a bigger factor in this election than what's commonly reported in the media. This might also explain the very large polling errors in states with large white population.
I am inclined to believe that racism was a bigger factor in this election than what's commonly reported in the media. This might also explain the very large polling errors in states with large white population.
3
One reason people voted for Trump is because like many other of the cultural obsessions of the left, the endless focus on race is tiresome and offensive. Liberals seem unable to resist putting people into groups based on superficial qualities, such as skin color or sexual preference (or "identity," the granddaddy of all most annoying liberal fixations). Trying thinking about people based on their ideas stop imagining that all your sub-groups are hugely important. You have created division and rancor and, honestly, much more trouble than good.
25
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you are not black. Blacks rank lower than whites on income, wealth, life expectancy, education, home ownership, incarceration rates, etc. So if this is all "tiresome" for you, try to imagine what it is like for black people. It was conservatives, not liberals, who created the southern strategy to promote the notion of black people as a monolithic group of welfare cheats, prostitutes, drug addicts, etc. If you will work on getting conservatives to stop that inhumane stereotyping, I will work on liberals to stop supporting the rights of minority groups--is that what you're after?
14
Its pure propaganda to claim that it's the Left that divides people. The right is constantly attacking any group that is not "old white men," and I say that as an old white man. It is a direct outgrowth of the global billionaire class's divide and conquer strategy (by controlling the conversation through corporate mass media, think tanks, lobbyists, lawyers, and rented politicians).
It wasn't the left that created slavery or attacked every group of immigrants that ever came here, or persecutes gays, and the transgendered, violently, at every opportunity.
The right never complained about "political correctness" when it was politically correct to terrorize minorities.
That said, the Left's obsession with identity politics can be self destructive. It is important to protect minorities against abuse (its called justice) and to try to heal the woulds inflicted by the terrorism of white supremacists, like the ones now taking over the White House, and the systemic racism embedded in many of our institutions from the top down.
But when identity is used to judge people instead of their actions, and when the bigger picture of a few thousand billionaires hoarding more than half of the world's wealth is clouded by a constant discussion of identity politics, we forget to unify the people behind the fight for economic justice.
Social Justice, economic justice, and environmental justice are all important, so concentrating on social justice most of the time leaves many out in the cold.
It wasn't the left that created slavery or attacked every group of immigrants that ever came here, or persecutes gays, and the transgendered, violently, at every opportunity.
The right never complained about "political correctness" when it was politically correct to terrorize minorities.
That said, the Left's obsession with identity politics can be self destructive. It is important to protect minorities against abuse (its called justice) and to try to heal the woulds inflicted by the terrorism of white supremacists, like the ones now taking over the White House, and the systemic racism embedded in many of our institutions from the top down.
But when identity is used to judge people instead of their actions, and when the bigger picture of a few thousand billionaires hoarding more than half of the world's wealth is clouded by a constant discussion of identity politics, we forget to unify the people behind the fight for economic justice.
Social Justice, economic justice, and environmental justice are all important, so concentrating on social justice most of the time leaves many out in the cold.
4
Whereas the vast majority of uneducated white men voting for Trump had nothing to do with race. And his endorsement by Neo-Nazis and the KKK was purely a coincidence. No, these voters all had motives pure as the driven snow? Right color anyway…
2
Clinton won the popular vote. And Trump is the second Republican to be elected with Federal government help. Bush had the Supreme Court and Trump had the FIB which is in the Executive branch of the Federal government. These facts should not be overlooked. Nor should they ever be forgotten!
13
Don't forget the direct help of the Russian government per their deputy foreign minister. He also indicated that Russians provided Trump with cyber help too.
7
NFL kickers miss 37-yard field goals...That vivid analogy always kept me on edge despite all other prediction numbers...Credit the Upshot...
4
The DNC lost this election when they nominated Clinton. This was an anti-establishment election. The DNC has a responsibility to field the candidate that has the best chance to win. That is part of the reason why the party has super delegates. The primaries aren't designed to just nominate the candidate with the most votes. The DNC and the super delegates could have nominated the candidate that was stronger in the states that mattered (the Rust Belt) in this election and they failed to do so. That is the great question in this election. Bernie Sanders would have soundly defeated Trump in these states. He was targeting the same voters that moved to Trump.
Other reasons based on the FBI and the Electoral College itself being messed up and the electorate itself are like blaming the weather. You can't control these things. The FBI and e-mail issues were hanging over Clinton the entire election. She was everything that the electorate in those states didn't want. The DNC had to have known all of this, and we also know thanks to WikiLeaks that the DNC and Clinton campaigns deliberately worked together against the Sander's campaign. That is what this election came down to. This outcome was predicted by many long in advance. The DNC leadership needs to be held accountable and dismantled. They had a candidate that would have at least faired better and that was under their control.
Other reasons based on the FBI and the Electoral College itself being messed up and the electorate itself are like blaming the weather. You can't control these things. The FBI and e-mail issues were hanging over Clinton the entire election. She was everything that the electorate in those states didn't want. The DNC had to have known all of this, and we also know thanks to WikiLeaks that the DNC and Clinton campaigns deliberately worked together against the Sander's campaign. That is what this election came down to. This outcome was predicted by many long in advance. The DNC leadership needs to be held accountable and dismantled. They had a candidate that would have at least faired better and that was under their control.
28
Sean, she won the popular vote by over half a million? What kind of Democracy elects someone who LOST the popular vote?
7
Ours - ask Andrew Jackson
3
That would be because so many of us would not vote for a corrupt, incompetent, warmongering rightest masquerading as a Democrat who got the nomination by election fraud in one state after another.
The only way to have a chance to get the Democratic Party back to its historic principles and clean out the corruption that extends from the DNC through the superdelegates was for Clinton to fail.
Is Trump terrible? Yes. But take the long view.
The only way to have a chance to get the Democratic Party back to its historic principles and clean out the corruption that extends from the DNC through the superdelegates was for Clinton to fail.
Is Trump terrible? Yes. But take the long view.
15
Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face rarely works out in the long view. It is entirely possible that four years of Trump, let alone eight, will set back carbon emissions reductions to put the planet beyond the point where we can limit warming to the extent needed. And that means that in our grandchildren's time, if not sooner, people won't be worrying about trade because nature may be depressing the standard of living irresistibly.
8
Corrupt? Warmongering? How? I am sick and tired of these adjectives being applied to Clinton. That you still use them, Kat, shows how dumbed down this electorate is. And, by the way, Clinton won the popular vote by over half a million.
11
To be honest, I NEVER saw any substantial policy proposal from either candidate on TV. Trump doesn't have one except for typical GOP garbage + yelling "THE WALL." Clinton's policies were totally ignored by all network television. CNN babbled about emails, Fox screamed about her being a lying murderer, and MSNBC is ok, but still overly focused on panels of yelling people because they try to be fair to both sides instead of relentlessly focus on propaganda. They're treated as Fox's opposite, but they don't go the PBS Newshour route, they continue to highlight the pundits and pollsters. NPR and PBS for the win on promoting substantive information, but their "market share" is tiny.
Democracy can't work without a free press that focuses on informing the electorate. All we have is propaganda or sensationalism. Maybe next time we can focus on policy and information - if we still have our institutions and a free press then.
Democracy can't work without a free press that focuses on informing the electorate. All we have is propaganda or sensationalism. Maybe next time we can focus on policy and information - if we still have our institutions and a free press then.
11
I whole-heartedly agree. Well said!
PBS doesn't highlight pundits and pollsters? Just ask David Brooks! If it weren't for PBS, where would we go for conventional wisdom?
Not only that: their "underwriting announcements" have become full-fledged commercials for the likes of BNSF Railway and Lumosity.com, but they still have the nerve to harangue listeners for contributions. Do they really pay their staffs that much better than the commercial stations? If not, where's the beggar-thy-neighbor money going?
Not only that: their "underwriting announcements" have become full-fledged commercials for the likes of BNSF Railway and Lumosity.com, but they still have the nerve to harangue listeners for contributions. Do they really pay their staffs that much better than the commercial stations? If not, where's the beggar-thy-neighbor money going?
I don't understand how all these farming communities in Iowa and North Dakota want the astute businessman. He will undoubtedly identify them as corporate welfare mooches with all their farm subsidies and cut them off.
3
They are "corporate welfare mooches" and "farm subsidies" are a form of welfare, so they should be cut off.
6
I certainly hope so. But Donald Trump could cut off their subsidies, take away the gravy-train dollars they get from food stamps, wall off their foreign markets, let their water and highway infrastructure rot, close their ag extension centers, and for good measure grope their daughters, and still they would blame Obama.
6
Hillary Clinton, the DNC, the liberal elites, and the economic policies of the Obama administration, during these last 8 years, decided this election, the overarching reason being that collectively, they deliberately ignored the economic pain and suffering of the poor and the middle-class.
Eight long difficult years wasted, powerlessly watching our corrupt corporate owned government cater exclusively to the 1%ters, while beggaring the poor and the middle-class, with the added insult of trying to foist the corrupt deeply disliked Hillary on us, was finally too much, so it was going to be amyone instead of her.
Perhaps the masters of mankind will learn, but I seriously doubt it.
Eight long difficult years wasted, powerlessly watching our corrupt corporate owned government cater exclusively to the 1%ters, while beggaring the poor and the middle-class, with the added insult of trying to foist the corrupt deeply disliked Hillary on us, was finally too much, so it was going to be amyone instead of her.
Perhaps the masters of mankind will learn, but I seriously doubt it.
23
Except that it was the GOP Congress that prevented Obama's stimulus (which was intended to include a large infrastructure improvement effort that had to be greatly downsized in face of GOP opposition) from being as large as it needed to be, and the same Congress that opposed his every other effort to benefit the 99%. The irony is that it would have been Hillary's policies, not Trump's, that would have benefited the very people who turned away from her -- in part, because whenever she tried to talk about policy, she was regarded as being boring.
13
Mr. Czipott,
Maybe if she had spent time in working class neighborhoods explaining her policies that would have helped? Instead her campaign focused on women and people of color. Clinton knows she struggles to connect with white working class voters. Rather than find a way to overcome it, she hardly glanced in their direction.
Who would have thought a Dem would struggle with something like that.
Maybe if she had spent time in working class neighborhoods explaining her policies that would have helped? Instead her campaign focused on women and people of color. Clinton knows she struggles to connect with white working class voters. Rather than find a way to overcome it, she hardly glanced in their direction.
Who would have thought a Dem would struggle with something like that.
5
You mean the GOP led Congress I assume.
I am Democrat and I did not vote last Tuesday. I am not dislike Hillary. And I believe Trump is a polished evil. Regarding Hillary, I think a NYTimes columnist, Dowd put it nearly perfectly this month:
" a woman, filled with fear and insecurity, hunkered down and repeated bad patterns rather than reimagining herself in an open, bold way."
Hillary wants to be President partly because both Bill and Hillary want to get even with Bush family: total 3 terms of Presidents: Senior Bush one term and W. Bush two terms. Clinton family want a third term president as well.
Indeed, as Hillary said last week, it was a painful loss. And this loss maybe permanantly eliminate all Clinton family members from seek public office in the future. It is not necessarily bad thing.
Without any bias, I think Clinton family have damaged Democrat party modestly from early 90's to the present.
" a woman, filled with fear and insecurity, hunkered down and repeated bad patterns rather than reimagining herself in an open, bold way."
Hillary wants to be President partly because both Bill and Hillary want to get even with Bush family: total 3 terms of Presidents: Senior Bush one term and W. Bush two terms. Clinton family want a third term president as well.
Indeed, as Hillary said last week, it was a painful loss. And this loss maybe permanantly eliminate all Clinton family members from seek public office in the future. It is not necessarily bad thing.
Without any bias, I think Clinton family have damaged Democrat party modestly from early 90's to the present.
12
Scranton, yes: implying Joe Biden would have won. I can believe that, though it undermines the "change vs insider" argument. Then the question would have been whether the Democrats would have taken the opportunity to build a progressive coalition, selling socialism to a working class raised to fear it and a (middle) managerial class that still clings to illusions of indispensability.
The big question in any case is which party (if either) will tell Wall Street and Big Oil they're fired. We'll get half our answer in short order. Then the middle and working class get to decide just how mad we are, and at whom.
The big question in any case is which party (if either) will tell Wall Street and Big Oil they're fired. We'll get half our answer in short order. Then the middle and working class get to decide just how mad we are, and at whom.
2
There are all these comments on the polls being wrong, but what about the idea that you can't win by not appealing to minorities, and women. Trump wasn't suppose to have a chance on that basis.
4
And indeed, Trump lost the popular vote.
4
The confusion discussed about the Hispanic vote is likely because this is not a single block and you need to look at the different Hispanic groups separately. For example, Trump insulted Mexicans and in parts of the country with more Mexican-Americans, such as Nevada, Clinton over-performed the polls. But the Hispanics in Florida do not include nearly as many Mexican-Americans.
Time to stop pretending that Hispanics are a single group. Then we may learn more from the data.
Time to stop pretending that Hispanics are a single group. Then we may learn more from the data.
9
Its time to stop campaigning to individual groups of any stripe. If we want a united country, candidates need to stop making speeches tailor-made to win over specific audiences.
Tell us what you stand for, what you hope to accomplish and HOW (something that is almost always missing). If your message is indeed one of broad appeal you will be elected by a cross-section of America.
Continuing to spin the message for each ethic, social or gender class - as defined by contrived metrics - will only serve to preserve the divisions.
Tell us what you stand for, what you hope to accomplish and HOW (something that is almost always missing). If your message is indeed one of broad appeal you will be elected by a cross-section of America.
Continuing to spin the message for each ethic, social or gender class - as defined by contrived metrics - will only serve to preserve the divisions.
4
He owes his success to President Obama and would-be President Clinton. To win, you must be selling what voters want to buy. They were fresh out of what the people wanted.
13
Why haven't the pundits placed the blame for this election squarely on the head of President Obama? No one seems ready to talk about the fact that the Democratic Party has suffered catastrophic loses since Obama became president. The Republicans have more elected officials in Washington and throughout the states than at any time since the Great Depression. The entire federal government will be controlled by the GOP next January. Twenty-four states have complete GOP led state governments. Nearly one thousand state legislators have become Republican since Obama became president. How can his tenure be considered anything but a repudiation by the American electorate? Everyone talks about how the GOP is in disarray but really it is the Democrats that need to rethink their principles and modify their message to the public.
27
Obama should not be blamed for the the election losses. His presidency was a disaster. Foreign policies did not have the desired affect. Its hard to understand how to give Iran $100 billion and not expect them to increase their terrorist activities. The policy only delayed them getting the bomb, so there was no positive from the agreement. No country in the Arab Spring is now better off, but taking sides only made us less popular in the Middle East.
Domestic policy? There was none. Obamacare was at best mis-timed. He should have tackled the economy first. Reid and Feinstein led him down the wrong path with their desire for a signature legislation. This resulted in his loss of both Congressional houses.
Race relations. We have to go back to the 60's to see a country as divided as it is today. Unfortunately, his lack of action on this front and appointing Eric Holder as AG was a huge mistake. Expectations as the first black president were probably too great to overcome. Perception became reality and he failed.
Hillary should have run independently from Obama not as the third term of an Obama administration.
Domestic policy? There was none. Obamacare was at best mis-timed. He should have tackled the economy first. Reid and Feinstein led him down the wrong path with their desire for a signature legislation. This resulted in his loss of both Congressional houses.
Race relations. We have to go back to the 60's to see a country as divided as it is today. Unfortunately, his lack of action on this front and appointing Eric Holder as AG was a huge mistake. Expectations as the first black president were probably too great to overcome. Perception became reality and he failed.
Hillary should have run independently from Obama not as the third term of an Obama administration.
10
Except that more people voted Democratic in this election than Republican. The composition of Congress and state legislators is the result of shameful and rampant gerrymandering of the electoral system.
3
Here is the real reason in the event that readers take time to read it. Hate won through this man.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2015-steve-bannon/
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2015-steve-bannon/
6
If anything shocked and horrified me during this election it was the lack of black voter support for Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Bill Clinton served as the youngest governor of Arkansas and, after being defeated, was re-elected. During his terms Ms. Rodham-Clinton fought vigorously for better education and improved civil rights in one of the "reddest" states in the country.
When Bill was President she again worked tirelessly to get health care for all and when she was shot down on all sides she did get a children's health care law passed that gave all children affordable health care through public schools.
President Lyndon Johnson, who took office after John F. Kennedy was assassinated, was the one who fought his hardest, with arm-twisting and threats, to get the Civil Rights Law passed.
Yet, some black people voted for the very far-right republican people who would/do kill and re-enslave them, particularly women. It is simply beyond comprehension.
When Bill was President she again worked tirelessly to get health care for all and when she was shot down on all sides she did get a children's health care law passed that gave all children affordable health care through public schools.
President Lyndon Johnson, who took office after John F. Kennedy was assassinated, was the one who fought his hardest, with arm-twisting and threats, to get the Civil Rights Law passed.
Yet, some black people voted for the very far-right republican people who would/do kill and re-enslave them, particularly women. It is simply beyond comprehension.
12
The notion of millions of blacks (supposedly) voting for Trump strikes me just as odd, and for similar reasons, as the notion of Jewish people in Florida supposedly voting for Pat Buchanan.
In the latter case, it turned out that the design of the ballots caused many people intending to vote for Gore to check the Buchanan box. In 2016 I have plenty of suspicions about rigged voting software.
In the latter case, it turned out that the design of the ballots caused many people intending to vote for Gore to check the Buchanan box. In 2016 I have plenty of suspicions about rigged voting software.
2
Gee. Maybe the Clintons shouldn't have passed that crime bill that put millions of blacks in prison for nonviolent drug posession and by extension took away their right to vote, forever?
They disenfranchised their own voters. DOH!
They disenfranchised their own voters. DOH!
1
We were in Amish country in Pennsylvania a week before the election and observed hundreds pro-Trump yards signs, including full-size billboards. The billboards stated they were paid for by "AmishPac". Since the Amish don't have TV and don't read the NYT, it seems that they followed their leadership, or the AmishPac, whoever they are. I understand there are about 100,000 Amish in PA. That voting block could have swung PA.
3
The Democratic party needs to address its relationship with the "working class" again. The following electoral map by zip code points this out better than any other I have seen.
http://www.iseapublish.com/index.php/2016/11/12/the-electoral-map-is-com...
http://www.iseapublish.com/index.php/2016/11/12/the-electoral-map-is-com...
14
First a request can you show how the district that left Obama for Trump voted in the Democratic Primaries. I'm especially interested in NY State but it's a question germane to what do the Dems do next? Secondly, Obama deported more people than any other president. In what universe does that translate into Hispanic support? Secondly, white voters are not suffering from identity issues, their paychecks are down. Children that graduate college make less than $15 an hour, while their factory worker parents make more. Trump argued the economy is rigged, Hillary argued the economy is getting stronger. We know what was the winning argument. If Democrats dismiss as racists people with legitimate grievances, the party's troubles will grow. Jobs are the issue.
16
People who have seen jobs, industry, research and development move overseas while their own communities declined voted for Trump. People who downtowns are deserted and factories are empt skeletons voted for Trump. Communities who have seen their infrastructure, schools, hospitals diminish while prisons filled up voted for Trump. Young people whose opportunity for jobs, careers, good education, and the opportunity to own a home and raise a family were totally destroyed by globalization voted for Trump. Millions of people whose voices were not heard for the last 30 years voted for Trump.
There is nothing else that needs analyzed, explained or excused. Americans wanted change. They didn't want a continuation of Obama or a replay of Bill Clinton. Most certainly they did not want Hillary Clinton and her private e-mail server with all of her excuses. We just didn't buy it.
Bring back good paying jobs. Make trade fair not free. Control our borders. Stop ISIS. Makes taxes fair. Rebuild schools, highways and infrastructure. Make healthcare affordable. End despair and hopelessness. That's how to win elections. Trump is making the offer and America is buying it.
There is nothing else that needs analyzed, explained or excused. Americans wanted change. They didn't want a continuation of Obama or a replay of Bill Clinton. Most certainly they did not want Hillary Clinton and her private e-mail server with all of her excuses. We just didn't buy it.
Bring back good paying jobs. Make trade fair not free. Control our borders. Stop ISIS. Makes taxes fair. Rebuild schools, highways and infrastructure. Make healthcare affordable. End despair and hopelessness. That's how to win elections. Trump is making the offer and America is buying it.
20
Jay: These voters were the Reagan Democrats who sowed the seed of their own desctruction when they put the Gipper into power. Trump will be the Gipper on steroids. Enjoy the pain.
17
If you believe all of that then I have a bridge I want to sell you (and it's not too different from the bridge the American people just bought from Trump).
6
The Reagan Democrats also bought and drank the cool-aid. "Its morning in America." Remember that? I do. I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now. And I didn't vote for Donald either. However, I know why people did.
Democrats, the elitists still can't recognize their own responsibility and culpability for this fiasco. Hillary doesn't get it either. Between the Clinton crime bill and NAFTA there's just terrible destruction of American economic and social fabric, institutions and industry.
I hold Jimmy Carter responsible for Reagan. I hold the Clintons responsible for their behavior and callousness. And I hold Hillary responsible for her server and e-mail fiasco.
I would have voted for Bernie Sanders had he been given a fair chance by Hillary. Her organization lied and cheated to get him out of the race.
Democrats, the elitists still can't recognize their own responsibility and culpability for this fiasco. Hillary doesn't get it either. Between the Clinton crime bill and NAFTA there's just terrible destruction of American economic and social fabric, institutions and industry.
I hold Jimmy Carter responsible for Reagan. I hold the Clintons responsible for their behavior and callousness. And I hold Hillary responsible for her server and e-mail fiasco.
I would have voted for Bernie Sanders had he been given a fair chance by Hillary. Her organization lied and cheated to get him out of the race.
4
Since I cannot bear to support those that voted against minorities, women, etcetera, we will be donating our Christmas tips that we normally give to the people in our building to the ACLU. Every single one of them voted for Trump. I encourage those in a similar position to do the same. The ACLU will need it. In the alternative, Planned Parenthood is also an organization that will need lots of help.
7
Wow. So these working class folks don't deserve holiday tips, on which I'm sure they rely, because they exercised their constitutional right to vote, but in a manner in which you don't agree with? You're part of the problem, clearly. It's sad you don't see that. At what point do we liberals become bigoted ourselves?
31
Tips are above and beyond pay. They are in appreciation and therefore optional. Political choices affect us all, and those building workers were thinking only of themselves and not of the greater good or how they would affect the tenants they served. They figured Trump would give them a better deal — a position which is debatable at best. In return, tenants have every right to spend their own hard-earned optional dollars as they see fit. That said, I suspect service over the upcoming year may not be accompanied by a smile.
9
Bernie Sanders can also take a bow for smearing and poisoning Clinton's reputation with so many young voters.
8
"Bernie Sanders can take a bow for smearing and poisoning Clinton's reputation"? Clinton did a fine job of that for herself. For that matter, if she hadn't been an arrogant and uninspiring scold, Bernie never would have attracted the support of the young -- and Trump wouldn't have stood a chance.
Read somewhere that only 107,000 votes in three crucial states determined this election.
Out of around 13.2-million votes cast in these three states, Pennsylvania went for Trump by roughly 68,000. Wisconsin, 27,000. Michigan, 12,000. Razor thin percentage -- 8/10ths of 1%. If Clinton had won there, she'd be President.
Out of around 13.2-million votes cast in these three states, Pennsylvania went for Trump by roughly 68,000. Wisconsin, 27,000. Michigan, 12,000. Razor thin percentage -- 8/10ths of 1%. If Clinton had won there, she'd be President.
Democratic voters in two of those states (PA and MI) suffered suppression by the Crosscheck computer system, which was designed to flag likely minority voters and either prevent them from voting or hold their ballots until they could confirm that they weren't registered in two states. Different middle names? Ignore that. One's a "Jr." and the other's a "Sr." or a "III"? Ignore that.
If anyone bothers (or is permitted) to go through votes in Electoral College states blighted by Crosscheck, it might well turn out that Hillary actually won those states' elector college votes.
If anyone bothers (or is permitted) to go through votes in Electoral College states blighted by Crosscheck, it might well turn out that Hillary actually won those states' elector college votes.
1
This was a close election as many before it this century, yet the winners always overinterpreted their victories. In 2008, Democrats won the Presidency, the Senate, and the House. What did they do? They went too far; that’s what they did. Americans were not voting for a hard left agenda. That’s why Republicans won the Congress back in the 2010 elections—to stop that agenda. But what did Republicans do? They went too far; that’s what they did. Americans were not voting for a hard right agenda. You’d think that just in the interest of not seeing their party defeated every two years, the two parties would’ve figured this out, but they didn’t, because they’d been consumed by ideology. Americans want both parties working together, for the people, from the center. If Republicans still don’t get this, they will lose in two years, which would mean that Democrats still didn’t understand this either. Let’s hope Trump has broken the cycle.
4
I am curious about this switching. Right now Trump is up 100k vs Romney in OH, no change in WI, 160k in MI and 200k in PA. Are the numbers in OH, PA, WI and MI going to change that much? I thought uncounted ballots were mostly in places like CA with more voting by mail?! If they don't how much of this voting swing is really explained by Obama voters flipping and not just greater interest from Trump's base of no college degree (there was a 4 point jump according to exit polls in this group). I'm not saying no one switched ship, but how many are their really?
Perhaps candidate selection should not be left to the DNC and the party elite next time.
Perhaps Clinton's many flaws should have been recognized as very real liabilities.
Perhaps the nytimes should not have assigned a reporter to Clinton three years ago to maximize her place in the news.
Perhaps Clinton's many flaws should have been recognized as very real liabilities.
Perhaps the nytimes should not have assigned a reporter to Clinton three years ago to maximize her place in the news.
19
Party elite didn't chose her. 55% of voters did. Our party held a vote.
6
"This was not an establishment friendly year."
Did I miss the vast majority of congressmen lose their elections? Is the RNC chair not now the White House Chief of Staff? Did Hillary Clinton not win the plurality of the vote?
It's fine to express surprise that Hillary Clinton lost the election, but it's bad journalism to suggest that one candidate whom most Americans did not vote for is a signal of anti-establishmentarianism. People may have protested with their Trump vote, but the establishment still won. Bigly.
Did I miss the vast majority of congressmen lose their elections? Is the RNC chair not now the White House Chief of Staff? Did Hillary Clinton not win the plurality of the vote?
It's fine to express surprise that Hillary Clinton lost the election, but it's bad journalism to suggest that one candidate whom most Americans did not vote for is a signal of anti-establishmentarianism. People may have protested with their Trump vote, but the establishment still won. Bigly.
9
Sure did. Just look at the people being considered for cabinet spots.
1
Would it be possible to calculate the odds of such a difference in Trumps returns in blue collar vote or non-college, white vote between California and Pennsylvania or Michigan given the pre-election polling? If the only explanatory variable to explain this geographic divergence in outcomes (if absent in pre-election polling) is the electoral college value of a vote, then I would begin to wonder how results could legitimately be so anomalous.
1
I feel that Trump won due to the stupidity (he and his right-wing underlings will implement policies which will hurt the middle and working classes) and low moral character (his molesting, his foul language, his illegal business practices)of the people who voted for him.
3
I've seen much written and much will be written, but little so far has addressed:
(1) Hillary's failure to focus on the white population but rather thought she could win garnering the minority populations. There was an article back in September(?) that indicated the white male vote in the prior election was undercounted, especially in the polls.
(2) The Media's strong liberal bent pushing much of Trump's supporters back into the "silent majority." It became a huge stigma if you said you were a Trump supporter.
(3) Hillary's manipulation of the DNC to get the nomination which probably led to Democrats staying home, especially since the polls indicated that Hillary was going to win. The Republican Party ran a wide open campaign. While many did not like the outcome, it was more representative than the Democratic process and people (the Electorate) felt good in the end.
(4) Hillary was never going to garner a minority vote similar to Obama. Much of the Black and Hispanic culture is male-dominated and both sexes were never going to support a woman to the degree they supported a male.
(5) In the end, long-winded discussions about policy does not matter; it's over most people's head. Feeling good, change, "feeling your pain," is what counts.
(6) Hillary shouldn't have talked about how bad Trump was with her huge negatives. They were wasted words. Its like the kettle calling the pot black.
(1) Hillary's failure to focus on the white population but rather thought she could win garnering the minority populations. There was an article back in September(?) that indicated the white male vote in the prior election was undercounted, especially in the polls.
(2) The Media's strong liberal bent pushing much of Trump's supporters back into the "silent majority." It became a huge stigma if you said you were a Trump supporter.
(3) Hillary's manipulation of the DNC to get the nomination which probably led to Democrats staying home, especially since the polls indicated that Hillary was going to win. The Republican Party ran a wide open campaign. While many did not like the outcome, it was more representative than the Democratic process and people (the Electorate) felt good in the end.
(4) Hillary was never going to garner a minority vote similar to Obama. Much of the Black and Hispanic culture is male-dominated and both sexes were never going to support a woman to the degree they supported a male.
(5) In the end, long-winded discussions about policy does not matter; it's over most people's head. Feeling good, change, "feeling your pain," is what counts.
(6) Hillary shouldn't have talked about how bad Trump was with her huge negatives. They were wasted words. Its like the kettle calling the pot black.
31
The key is 1,4,5 and 6. Nate Cohn wrote the article about white voters btw. Obama ran way ahead of Gore and Kerry with northern working class whites, and Hillary was destroyed by Trump with those voters.
On the 'shy Trump' vote, it probably didn't exist. A lot of downballot Republicans outperformed their polls by similar amounts to Trump, and I doubt there was a hidden Pat Toomey or Ron Johnson voter. He also overperformed his polls the most in red states like Missouri and West Virginia, whereas the opposite should be true if social pressure is causing people to hide their voter preferences.
On the 'shy Trump' vote, it probably didn't exist. A lot of downballot Republicans outperformed their polls by similar amounts to Trump, and I doubt there was a hidden Pat Toomey or Ron Johnson voter. He also overperformed his polls the most in red states like Missouri and West Virginia, whereas the opposite should be true if social pressure is causing people to hide their voter preferences.
The polls that drive much of a campaign's strategy were all underestimating the strength of the Trump sentiment, so I would disagree that there was no impact from the "silent majority."
Nate Cohn's work was part of the problem. His and other pollsters continually misread the Trump's strength through the primaries and the election period. They also misread Brexit. While the pollsters are now trying to justify their work, it was less reliable this time around. Maybe there should be open discussions about sampling techniques and how the polls were developed. Polls administered with live bodies seems to be less reliable than those with computers asking the questions...leads back to my point of a silent majority.
Also, the third party candidates were more advantaged from Democratic deserters than by Republican deserters who probably stayed home.
Nate Cohn's work was part of the problem. His and other pollsters continually misread the Trump's strength through the primaries and the election period. They also misread Brexit. While the pollsters are now trying to justify their work, it was less reliable this time around. Maybe there should be open discussions about sampling techniques and how the polls were developed. Polls administered with live bodies seems to be less reliable than those with computers asking the questions...leads back to my point of a silent majority.
Also, the third party candidates were more advantaged from Democratic deserters than by Republican deserters who probably stayed home.
4
Yes, Hillary's negative campaign was counter productive. Everyone was already bombarded with Trump's behavior. Clinton didn't need to get in the way of that.
What she needed to do was to provide a vision of the future that addressed the anger that many feel toward the establishment, and the need to take care of displaced workers. But she studiously avoided promising anything substantial ever, just using vagaries to say nothing substantial.
Of course a commercial with 50 edits of Trump saying "Your Fired," probably would have gotten many People in their gut, but as I predicted for months, they never ran that most obvious of ads.
What she needed to do was to provide a vision of the future that addressed the anger that many feel toward the establishment, and the need to take care of displaced workers. But she studiously avoided promising anything substantial ever, just using vagaries to say nothing substantial.
Of course a commercial with 50 edits of Trump saying "Your Fired," probably would have gotten many People in their gut, but as I predicted for months, they never ran that most obvious of ads.
1
This election was determined by "White Males" who haven't the faintest idea as to what they have done! They voted out-of-fear. These "White Males" feel that they are losing their preferred position as the dominant race in America and in an act of fear/racism/misogyny have placed a "White Male" that is unqualified to run a Taco Stand without it going into bankruptcy ... into the White House (let's put the "white" back into the White House). They want their country back, which means they want to remain the "majority", but in 5-10 years they will become a minority in America and they just can't handle it.
5
Wrong. Trump won on the Economy. I'm an MBA and Phi Beta Kappa college graduate.
11
The media always referred to Hillary's untrustworthiness.
The media never said Hillary has never been indicted.
So the media, obviously, believed she was guilty of many things she just got away with.
The media never said Hillary has never been indicted.
So the media, obviously, believed she was guilty of many things she just got away with.
6
Did he win over Obama voters, or did Obama voters stay home?
The most interesting data I've seen showed that Trump got the same 60 million votes that McCain and Romney did, but Clinton got 10 million fewer votes (59 million vs. 69 million) than Obama did in 2008 and 6 million fewer than Obama in 2012.
It's not about the percentages, it's about the numbers.
The most interesting data I've seen showed that Trump got the same 60 million votes that McCain and Romney did, but Clinton got 10 million fewer votes (59 million vs. 69 million) than Obama did in 2008 and 6 million fewer than Obama in 2012.
It's not about the percentages, it's about the numbers.
5
To answer the deadline question, Mr. Obama did not deliver on his implied promise of "hope" and "our time," even after his re-election which was sold as the time we would see the real Obama unfettered by the need to pander to his funders to gain re-election. Simple, really.
11
The voters were voting more against Hillary Clinton than for Donald Trump. The pollsters and pundits were clueless about how few people trust Hillary. Like it or not, we knew where Trump stood. I never really trusted that what Hillary said was what she really believed. But then she was so stupid and arrogant to label Trump supporters "a basket of deplorables." On does not get Blue collar votes by insulting the voters.
23
Hillary's "basket of deplorables" remark referred *only* to DT voters who supported the Klan, Neo-Nazis, and such. The second half of her statement, which was almost never described, described the rest of his supporters as having legitimate concerns about jobs and so on, for which she discussed her remedies.
3
This election was determined by men and less than apparently independent women, all of whom will offer many reasons, but my sense is they will all boil down to the fact she is a woman in a nation where only men are accepted as "strong" leaders and understood, let alone respected.
Might still makes right.
It isn't as though women have ever been respected as equal social partners and in our world which relies on force there is little reason this question will arise for another generation.
The whole political process is an act which has been used to benefit the few more than all and is the antithesis of governing. Whether we like it or not, because we live so close together and are equally dependent on each other, some governing must take place.
Cooperation rather than coercion.
Whatever form Mr Trump chooses will, as he has indicated with regard to the human rights of women, at some level be unfortunate. No one in this nation can dictate the rights of others for long before waking the slumbering giant of freedom.
Might still makes right.
It isn't as though women have ever been respected as equal social partners and in our world which relies on force there is little reason this question will arise for another generation.
The whole political process is an act which has been used to benefit the few more than all and is the antithesis of governing. Whether we like it or not, because we live so close together and are equally dependent on each other, some governing must take place.
Cooperation rather than coercion.
Whatever form Mr Trump chooses will, as he has indicated with regard to the human rights of women, at some level be unfortunate. No one in this nation can dictate the rights of others for long before waking the slumbering giant of freedom.
2
Everyone recognized that no one like Donald Trump had ever run in the entire U.S. history of nationhood. But it seems that very few analysts, reporters and pollers took that into account. You can't use the usual tools, apply the typical views, when analyzing such an unprecedented election. Taking fully into account his deep and broad base of support among working-class Americans may not have changed the results. At the least, it would have steeled us to what was coming and caused fewer abrupt tears and fears. At best, it would have forced Clinton to readjust her campaign to include the millions of Forgotten who were so clearly crying out for change, any change.
11
Andrew Jackson was a lot like Trump & considered his election as almost a revolution against the eastern money people.
5
The Seattle Times Sunday front page headline article featured a post-election graphic from the NYT based on 24,537 voters polled.
Trump voters said immigration and terrorism were their top two concerns while Clinton voters prioritized foreign policy and the economy.
This contradicts the narrative of the economy as the big issue and suggests that fear of outsiders dominated the minds of Trump voters.
Now consider the difference in rhetoric on refugees. Trump promised "extreme vetting" and Clinton promised "welcoming".
Which one do you suppose better fit the American mood this year, with San Bernardino, Orlando and Paris fresh in our minds?
Ironically, with Trump's big infrastructure and defense spending plans, in a tight market for skilled labor, he could preside over the largest wave of legal immigration in recent history. It's not like there are a lot of civil engineers home on the couch.
A good place for Trump to start would be to throw out the current H1B program and rewrite the rules so that job outsourcers like Tata Consultancy and Infosys cannot dominate the lottery system by flooding it with applications.
Trump voters said immigration and terrorism were their top two concerns while Clinton voters prioritized foreign policy and the economy.
This contradicts the narrative of the economy as the big issue and suggests that fear of outsiders dominated the minds of Trump voters.
Now consider the difference in rhetoric on refugees. Trump promised "extreme vetting" and Clinton promised "welcoming".
Which one do you suppose better fit the American mood this year, with San Bernardino, Orlando and Paris fresh in our minds?
Ironically, with Trump's big infrastructure and defense spending plans, in a tight market for skilled labor, he could preside over the largest wave of legal immigration in recent history. It's not like there are a lot of civil engineers home on the couch.
A good place for Trump to start would be to throw out the current H1B program and rewrite the rules so that job outsourcers like Tata Consultancy and Infosys cannot dominate the lottery system by flooding it with applications.
13
Try this. It is absurd and useless to overanalyze this. There is a growing trend regardless of the race, creed or socioeconomic background to blame their lot on government. If you're poor struggling in an urban area and still find yourself trapped there due to poor choices, government should do more. If you're in Wall Street, government has infuriated you with needed regulations and now your business will only yield you one summer home. If you're middle class and took out a mortgage that common sense told you was unsustainable and shady, the government failed you. If you are here illegally due to economic reasons, of course, you want tax payers to subsidize your the hospital bills for childbirth and pay for your children's education. Why should you be deported? If you're in the Rustbelt and heard for decades that jobs were leaving as a new world economy was arriving...the government failed you because they didn't bring back the dead and because you could have planned differently for the future. The greatest problem we have are the voters themselves.
25
With you on some points but definitely not on your contention that the struggling urban poor are trapped "due to poor choices." If good education & healthcare are not available, access to them is beyond the control of such residents...what poor choice are they guilty of? And it's not as easy as you think to up sticks and move elsewhere. For a start, where is the magical where with a thriving economy, low rents, and plenty of low-skilled jobs?
5
I am an Independent but I mostly voted for Democrats in the past.
I voted for Gary Johnson last week. Here is why I did not vote for Hillary last Tuesday:
1. I am indifferent toward Hillary. While her talk about break glass Ceiling did not backfire, it Did Not Help neither. I think deep down, both bill and Hillary Clinton believe that if Bill Clinton had not been the president of United States, Hillary would not became senator of NY and Sec. of State. While her achievements is very impressive, yet it Was Not ENTIRELY due to her efforts, talents and abilities.
2. Her email issue did not bother me at all, carelessness is not a crime.
3. Possible corruption at Clinton Foundation did bother me, but I would have voted for her if I knew last week that a thug may win the presidency of United States with 50% of possibilities.
I voted for Gary Johnson last week. Here is why I did not vote for Hillary last Tuesday:
1. I am indifferent toward Hillary. While her talk about break glass Ceiling did not backfire, it Did Not Help neither. I think deep down, both bill and Hillary Clinton believe that if Bill Clinton had not been the president of United States, Hillary would not became senator of NY and Sec. of State. While her achievements is very impressive, yet it Was Not ENTIRELY due to her efforts, talents and abilities.
2. Her email issue did not bother me at all, carelessness is not a crime.
3. Possible corruption at Clinton Foundation did bother me, but I would have voted for her if I knew last week that a thug may win the presidency of United States with 50% of possibilities.
14
I understand those who wish to vote their conscience; however, one has to also realize the worst case scenario. Nothing is ever certain, especially in an election such as this one. Perhaps this is a greatest lesson for us all.
7
I have the same sentiment on H. Clinton, her campaign generated very limited passion among her base.
5
Help me to understand: Trump would not have won without Floridas 29 electoral votes. How does that demographically compare to PA. The upshot had an article saying very high Hispanic in Florida. Couldn't one say that their voting in Florida was not strong enough?
1
Actually Bill, assuming that Trump's lead in Michigan holds up, he will end up with 306 electoral votes. This means that he would have won even without the 29 from Florida (306-29=277). While the relatively large proportion of Latino voters in Florida has gotten some press, it should be kept in mind that (i) Clinton is believed to have under-performed among Latinos compared to President Obama four years ago and (ii) Florida not only has plenty of white working-class voters, esp. in the northern half of the state, but has a large elderly population which is believed to have gone heavily for Trump this time.
4
Is it possible that the well off, well educated Cuban hispanics in Florida are very different from the uneducated, illiterate, non-English speaking Mexican hispanics in other parts of the country?
6
I voted for change in 2008 and didn't get any. Same wars plus new ones, same surveillance and violations of civil liberties, same extra-legal incarceration of political enemies in Guantanamo, same militarization of domestic policing, same arrogation of unchecked power to the executive. So I tried again this year, voting for change.
34
You will definitely get change, whether or not it is the change you were looking for remains to be seen.
2
You, jkw, are in for an unpleasant surprise unless you are a white male with unlimited resources.
4
Yes, while being accused of being some wild eyed commie, Obama was expanding the surveillance state, and militarizing the police. His Homeland Security actually coordinated the national attacks on the Occupy camps, uprooting almost every one of them in dozens of cities in two months.
Now Obama will be turning over the expanded surveillance apparatus (of which 75% has been contracted out to global corporations, many based in foreign countries!) to an over sensitive, ego-maniacal, psychopath, who will have a large core of loyal law enforcement and military personnel willing to bend the law for him.
That should turn out well.
Now Obama will be turning over the expanded surveillance apparatus (of which 75% has been contracted out to global corporations, many based in foreign countries!) to an over sensitive, ego-maniacal, psychopath, who will have a large core of loyal law enforcement and military personnel willing to bend the law for him.
That should turn out well.
3
The devil is in the premises. No politician owns any voter. They all owe their voters turning into reality their campaign promises. If they fail for no obviously good reason, voters will vote in someone else.
This election shows vote matters, which is a good for democracy. More states have become competitive, and that's good for democracy too. Big money didn't buy election, and that's good for democracy too. With all these, campaign finance reform has become a non-issue, and politicians and the public can focus time and energy on pressing challenges. Take heart!
This election shows vote matters, which is a good for democracy. More states have become competitive, and that's good for democracy too. Big money didn't buy election, and that's good for democracy too. With all these, campaign finance reform has become a non-issue, and politicians and the public can focus time and energy on pressing challenges. Take heart!
5
It is very difficult to win against a competitor whose platform is 'vote for me and all your dreams will come true'. Based on what I have seen so far from Mr. Trump's possible Cabinet, I believe that the only dreams fulfilled will be nightmares for his supporters and the rest of us.
24
Florida.
Pennsylvania.
Ohio.
Michigan.
Wisconsin.
Iowa.
All 6 states voted for Obama twice. Clearly Trump made at least some inroads with Obama voters in these states in order to win them, esp. in Ohio, Michigan and Iowa, where Clinton ran nearly or more than 10 points worse than President Obama did four years ago.
This is off-topic, but I'd also like to address the title of Jonathan Martin's article "Pulling Democrats Back to 'It's the Economy, Stupid'". This, in a nutshell, is why the Democrats lost last Tuesday (and yes, the party as a whole lost, not just losing the White House but also failing to win back the Senate majority, making only modest gains in the House, losing even more governorships and failing to dent their massive deficit in state legislative seats). "Pulling Democrats back" to an economy-oriented message? Why did the Democratic Party ever pull away from such a message in the first place? Why did the party ever think this would be a good idea?
Pennsylvania.
Ohio.
Michigan.
Wisconsin.
Iowa.
All 6 states voted for Obama twice. Clearly Trump made at least some inroads with Obama voters in these states in order to win them, esp. in Ohio, Michigan and Iowa, where Clinton ran nearly or more than 10 points worse than President Obama did four years ago.
This is off-topic, but I'd also like to address the title of Jonathan Martin's article "Pulling Democrats Back to 'It's the Economy, Stupid'". This, in a nutshell, is why the Democrats lost last Tuesday (and yes, the party as a whole lost, not just losing the White House but also failing to win back the Senate majority, making only modest gains in the House, losing even more governorships and failing to dent their massive deficit in state legislative seats). "Pulling Democrats back" to an economy-oriented message? Why did the Democratic Party ever pull away from such a message in the first place? Why did the party ever think this would be a good idea?
23
The problem is that Robby Mook and the majority of Clinton's campaign had no interest in that part of the population that sweats and gets dirty making their living. This snotty attitude prevails on both sides of the aisle among the so called intelligentsia. I got sweaty and dirty making my living as a Boilermaker, this does not mean I am not well read on political and economic issues, that I don't hold inclusive attitudes toward those who do not look like me. You cannot denigrate and ignore the base that got you there and expect that they will still vote for you. especially after they have told you "we are still hurtin here" and are forgotten after the election.
It will be interesting to see how much love there is for Trump if he treats that part of the electorate the same way they have been treated the last four decades. I wonder how long before buyers remorse sets in. Remember the Chinese curse, be careful what you wish for, it may come true.
It will be interesting to see how much love there is for Trump if he treats that part of the electorate the same way they have been treated the last four decades. I wonder how long before buyers remorse sets in. Remember the Chinese curse, be careful what you wish for, it may come true.
15
I wonder if Robby Mook will ever be run another POTUS campaign? Sure seems that he missed it big time.
6
My husband, son, and myself all do normal work for a living and we didn't feel the campaign talked down to us in that way. But we're hardcore Democrats/Greens so would never vote GOP unless they completely swapped party platform positions! But we are in the California bubble where we see immigrants working their asses off.
3
I live in Dallas, TX and your hunch about Hispanic voters doesn't seem right to me. The census tract just south of me (1204) was 92% Hispanic in 2010. The tract fits entirely in Precinct 1074 that gave Clinton 85.2% of the vote and Trump just 12.0%.
In 2012 that same precinct gave Obama 83.4% of the vote and Romney 16.0%. 2012 turnout was 42.5% and in 2016 it was up to 48.9% (176 more voters).
In fact if you go into the details Romney and Trump both received the same number of votes (80), but Clinton improved on Obama's total by 151. 85.7% of the new voters went for Clinton and 0% went for Trump. Just one data point, but much more focused on the Hispanic vote than extrapolations about all of Orange County, FL.
In 2012 that same precinct gave Obama 83.4% of the vote and Romney 16.0%. 2012 turnout was 42.5% and in 2016 it was up to 48.9% (176 more voters).
In fact if you go into the details Romney and Trump both received the same number of votes (80), but Clinton improved on Obama's total by 151. 85.7% of the new voters went for Clinton and 0% went for Trump. Just one data point, but much more focused on the Hispanic vote than extrapolations about all of Orange County, FL.
1
Seems to me that no one notices that alpha males don't vote for women. Time for us to forget policy and virtue, "them" don't pull that lever. And that support will continue. One theory I have is that Trump is lazy -- he's never done a hard day's work, so he will need more naps. Seventy year old, overweight males run out of gas sooner rather than later.
7
The seeds of this election were sown early in Obama's administration, when most of the Wall Street types were saved and millions of middle class workers were left to slowly bleed as their houses were foreclosed, their investments, 401Ks and dreams disappeared. If the energy and political capital that was spent on Obama Care had been used to save the homes and futures of as many middle class workers as possible then there would be no Tea Party and no President Trump. A great miscalculation by an otherwise great President.
49
Greg, great post, you nailed it.
3
Not true. Obama spent all that energy and political capital on health care because the uninsured were bleeding the system dry. There could be no fix for the economy without attending to the health care crisis. Health care costs stood at the root of bankruptcy and foreclosure and ruined lives. People spent down to their last savings to pay for medical care and strained local agencies, charities, hospital emergency rooms, and finally the streets with uncompensated care. Obama had no choice. Not one president even tried to tackle the health care problem since Hillary's massive failure in the 1990s. At least she tried. If you want to cast blame, look at the insurance industry. It has stood in the way of meaningful price controls and reasonable coverage for generations.
3
Exactly. Obama got all of the bad press of being labeled a socialist, without any of the benefits of actually being a socialist.
If Obama had nationalized the banks that crashed the economy, arrested the people responsible, passed single payer universal healthcare, raised taxes on the rich, bailed out the homeowners, (which would have bailed out the banks indirectly when they paid their mortgages), not hired Goldman Sachs to run his administration, and most importantly had used his community organizing skills to work with the growing movements for social, economic, and environmental justice, the Republicans would have called him a atheist, Muslim, Kenyan socialist, and tried to block all of his proposals, but he would have been a hero to the People that elected him to make change.
Instead he led every negotiation with his desired compromise, and watched the Republicans move further right over and over.
The grass roots Tea Party (unlike its Astro Turf descendant) hates crony capitalism, but Obama's arguing for billionaire bonuses, while millions lost their homes, was the epitome of crony capitalism, angering the grass roots on both ends of the spectrum.
The Republicans had completely discredited themselves by 2008, but by being hyper reasonable, he gave credence to the tired old arguments for supply side economics, even though it had failed over and over for decades.
You do not win tug of war by moving to the center. We need a party on the Left to keep balance.
If Obama had nationalized the banks that crashed the economy, arrested the people responsible, passed single payer universal healthcare, raised taxes on the rich, bailed out the homeowners, (which would have bailed out the banks indirectly when they paid their mortgages), not hired Goldman Sachs to run his administration, and most importantly had used his community organizing skills to work with the growing movements for social, economic, and environmental justice, the Republicans would have called him a atheist, Muslim, Kenyan socialist, and tried to block all of his proposals, but he would have been a hero to the People that elected him to make change.
Instead he led every negotiation with his desired compromise, and watched the Republicans move further right over and over.
The grass roots Tea Party (unlike its Astro Turf descendant) hates crony capitalism, but Obama's arguing for billionaire bonuses, while millions lost their homes, was the epitome of crony capitalism, angering the grass roots on both ends of the spectrum.
The Republicans had completely discredited themselves by 2008, but by being hyper reasonable, he gave credence to the tired old arguments for supply side economics, even though it had failed over and over for decades.
You do not win tug of war by moving to the center. We need a party on the Left to keep balance.
3