US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6178

On November 11 2016 01:51 TheYango wrote:
The discussion right now about the electoral college is a red herring here. Even if Clinton won the popular vote, it's still true that almost 50% of the country voted for Trump. Whether you disenfranchise slightly more or slightly less than 50%, the problem is still the same.

The electoral map posted by Danglars illustrates the real problem here: we are a country that is living in two different worlds. The way rural America experiences the world is too different from urban America does. Even the urban Trump voter probably voted for Trump for vastly different reasons than his rural counterpart. In the last day since the election, I've been trying to reconcile myself with how so much of the country not only has a different worldview from my own, but one that seems utterly incompatible with my own.

It is easy to dismiss their view as uneducated or illogical, but that doesn't make the problem go away. It's easy to be partisan and blame the other side, when in fact a lot of what's wrong isn't the fault of either party, and is just an inevitable consequence of advancing technology and a shift in economy toward 21st century tech. We need to make a better effort to understand each other as a country, and what we should be doing to help such a massive swath of people who have been left behind by the 21st century.

Clinton’s campaign assumed that the Obama coalition, which relied heavily on urban minority and suburban women voters, was permanent. Democrats saw little need to court blue-collar whites in places like western Pennsylvania, as Clinton did in 2008, or even acknowledge what’s happened there over the past 40 years. In a moment of utter tone-deafness back in March, Clinton even said at a town hall in West Virginia, “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”

Voters remembered that. Across eastern Ohio and rural Pennsylvania, political signs in town after town declared some version of, “Elect Trump, stop the war on coal.” Perhaps without fully realizing it, the Clinton campaign conveyed a blunt message to working-class whites across the region: we don’t care about you.

She was the Democratic candidate because it was her turn and because a Clinton victory would have moved every Democrat in Washington up a notch. Whether or not she would win was always a secondary matter, something that was taken for granted. Had winning been the party’s number one concern, several more suitable candidates were ready to go. There was Joe Biden, with his powerful plainspoken style, and there was Bernie Sanders, an inspiring and largely scandal-free figure. Each of them would probably have beaten Trump, but neither of them would really have served the interests of the party insiders.


And so Democratic leaders made Hillary their candidate even though they knew about her closeness to the banks, her fondness for war, and her unique vulnerability on the trade issue – each of which Trump exploited to the fullest. They chose Hillary even though they knew about her private email server. They chose her even though some of those who studied the Clinton Foundation suspected it was a sketchy proposition.

To try to put over such a nominee while screaming that the Republican is a rightwing monster is to court disbelief. If Trump is a fascist, as liberals often said, Democrats should have put in their strongest player to stop him, not a party hack they’d chosen because it was her turn. Choosing her indicated either that Democrats didn’t mean what they said about Trump’s riskiness, that their opportunism took precedence over the country’s well-being, or maybe both.

Clinton’s supporters among the media didn’t help much, either. It always struck me as strange that such an unpopular candidate enjoyed such robust and unanimous endorsements from the editorial and opinion pages of the nation’s papers, but it was the quality of the media’s enthusiasm that really harmed her. With the same arguments repeated over and over, two or three times a day, with nuance and contrary views all deleted, the act of opening the newspaper started to feel like tuning in to a Cold War propaganda station. Here’s what it consisted of:

• Hillary was virtually without flaws. She was a peerless leader clad in saintly white, a super-lawyer, a caring benefactor of women and children, a warrior for social justice.
  
• Her scandals weren’t real.
  
• The economy was doing well / America was already great.
  
• Working-class people weren’t supporting Trump.
  
• And if they were, it was only because they were botched humans. Racism was the only conceivable reason for lining up with the Republican candidate.

How did the journalists’ crusade fail? The fourth estate came together in an unprecedented professional consensus. They chose insulting the other side over trying to understand what motivated them. They transformed opinion writing into a vehicle for high moral boasting. What could possibly have gone wrong with such an approach?

On November 11 2016 01:57 Doodsmack wrote:
You're using a double standard here because did not adhere in his business life to his criticism of politicians and their policies. Unless you also admit that's the case about Trump, which brings us back to the gender double standard.

On November 11 2016 01:58 farvacola wrote:
Rural folk aren't nearly as mysterious as many in the media are supposing; previously, Democrats had a stronger rural presence because unions used to play a much larger local/state role as an organizing force. With the erosion of manufacturing union power and influence, it has become more difficult for Democrats to communicate with/organize the countryside. Add in Clinton's relative deafness to rural issues of aracial joblessness and lack of services and her loss becomes more and more understandable.

On November 11 2016 02:12 LegalLord wrote:

The core of people's complaints really is just that "the wrong candidate won because the system is BS." And while the system may be BS, we really don't know how it would have gone with a different system. We only have educated guesses.

Maybe Michigan workers would get ignored in favor of California liberals who are too lazy to get out and vote unless prodded. We really just don't know. The system we have led to the current results. A different system wouldn't just be "this same thing but different presidents." It would be completely different.

The stuff Trump talks about immigrants is one thing, how MSNBC treats midwesterners is quite another. If you like some densely packed coasts and cities ruling over a sea of red--because votes--I salute your unironic endorsement of colonialism because that's a hard thing to do. Everybody knows where your overlords and moral betters live.

On November 11 2016 02:20 Buckyman wrote:
Okay, GIVEN that rural and small town voters have real problems that aren't being addressed, how do we address those problems?

On November 11 2016 02:20 xDaunt wrote:

No, the most interesting job in the nation will be Trump's press secretary (though largely for the same reason). Milo joked that he wanted to be Trump's press secretary if Trump won the election. I think that would be glorious.

On November 11 2016 02:32 Acrofales wrote:

Without the context of which discussion you are throwing this question into, I will assume it is about the EC overrepresenting rural areas.

(1) They are already overrepresented in the electoral system, so I guess that is an advantage other minorities already do not have. What makes rural and small town voters more important than black, hispanic or gay voters? Note: I think there is a perfectly good and pragmatic argument to be made for why population density is important to be taken into account in elections, but it's a delicate balancing act between geography and number of people.

(2) Rural and small town voters have the exact same tools available to them as to other constituents. Contact your representatives and make sure your problems are heard. Whether they are addressed or not, you can assess that the next time you have to go and vote.

On November 11 2016 02:37 farvacola wrote:

This is where the abject socialist in me thinks that a mandatory year of civil service following high school would do a ton of good; force country folk into the cities and city folks into the country. Mandatory anything here in the states is a pipe dream, but oh well, still something to work towards

On November 11 2016 02:35 Mohdoo wrote:
Big problem with these rural white communities is that their expectations are unreasonable. The days of raising a family off a single factory wage, and then also buying a house, is straight up madness at this point. It's not even easy for a chemical engineer. WW2 gave people wildly unrealistic expectations.

Does anyone believe there is a path for a factory worker raising a family and buying a house? I really, really don't.

On November 11 2016 02:35 Mohdoo wrote:
Big problem with these rural white communities is that their expectations are unreasonable. The days of raising a family off a single factory wage, and then also buying a house, is straight up madness at this point. It's not even easy for a chemical engineer. WW2 gave people wildly unrealistic expectations.

Does anyone believe there is a path for a factory worker raising a family and buying a house? I really, really don't.

On November 11 2016 02:35 Mohdoo wrote:
Big problem with these rural white communities is that their expectations are unreasonable. The days of raising a family off a single factory wage, and then also buying a house, is straight up madness at this point. It's not even easy for a chemical engineer. WW2 gave people wildly unrealistic expectations.

Does anyone believe there is a path for a factory worker raising a family and buying a house? I really, really don't.