It's not just the Midwest really, it's more like rural communities in general.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Analysis: Poor turnout not responsible for Trump's victory.
- Thread starter entremet
- Start date
- Status
It's not just the Midwest really, it's more like rural communities in general.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Yup, there were a few polls done at both the national and state level across rural communities on Obama's support. It dropped like a rock after he mentioned Trayvon and reminded people he's black.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
i dont disagree with this statement at its face but given the context im sure we disagree with what the compromises are and who is doing the compromising. As to what you were responding to the good news is that there are millions of eligible voters that havent chosen a side yet and there are several different policy proposals that are a) very popular with these very same people and b) congruent with social justice.
edit: error in amount
She could have won but ran a poor campaign. If you really think Trump, with a 37% approval rating after being president for like 9.5 weeks was unbeatable, then the Democratic Party is in terrible trouble. Everything was wrong with her campaign, whether it was her focus on replicating the Obama coalition when she's not Obama, the fact that she tried to spike the ball instead of competing in the states she needed to win, had an incoherent message, is as charismatic as a paper bag, or only campaigned like 4 days per week.
I've no doubt she would be a pretty good President, but she ran a garbage campaign.
Choose incrementally better moves from any of the above and she had a punchers chance, at the very least of flipping the results.
If my choice is between republicans who are full on white supremacists and/or on board with them, and democrats who have to compromise to eventually get a more progressive agenda on board, I won't be happy, but I'll still vote for the democrats. Given your previous posts about being against transactionally supporting white supremacy, I don't see how, if those are the only two real options, you can justify anything else either.
That being said, this is a bizarre dichotomy that you have created and I don't think it's representative of real life, but as long as the policy positions of republicans and democrats remain on the course they are, I will vote for the democrats 100% of the time no matter what.
Hillary's message to rural Americans was "fuck em".
She ran on a strategy of being able to pick up 2 moderate republicans in the burbs for every vote she lost in the rural areas. She didn't campaign in rural areas, had no real message for them, and didn't visit those flyover areas. She lost the votes there but never picked up the 2 in the burbs.
Obama understood that you didn't have to win those areas of the country, but you couldn't just get fucking mobbed. You had to at least compete.
And_Gignac
Member
And the shift wouldn't have happened if Bernie had been the candidate. 💁🏼
This post doesn't really contain enough information for me to know what we're talking about, but...good? I like popular proposals that are congruent with social justice* and I dislike compromising with white supremacy, so I'll just assume we're on the same page.
Probably the worst possible outcome out of this election, from my view, is that the Democrats decide that they need to accept and normalize some white supremacists to win elections and nominates somebody next time who, for example, condemns Black Lives Matter, or commits to making it harder for people of color to come to America.
If this seems unlikely to you, consider the campaign of Bill Clinton in 1992.
In this scenario, with the full normalization of both political parties, white supremacy probably just becomes okay and publicly accepted. It isn't clear to me, in that situation, that supporting the Democrats accomplishes my goals, because it isn't clear that I can live in peace in that America as it is constituted.
* I mean, unless they just suck for other reasons, I guess
She can write whatever she wants on her website, but if it ain't in her ads, and the press isn't covering it, and she isn't going to Wisconsin to talk about it, and in the debates she just directs people back to her website, then she doesn't actually communicating a message for those people.
I agree she had policy proposals on a website. Most voters knew nothing about them.
Edit: her manufacturing policies are remarkably similar to a sane-sounding trump, actually. But I don't think she did more than a handful of events in factories, so there you go.
Commanche Raisin Toast
Member
Trump convinced them that Obama somehow fucked then over.
soundscream
Member
Did you!
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88478467
"The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through a part of our union that we have not yet made perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care or education or the need to find good jobs for every American."
Yep racisism is totes over guys.
shinra-bansho
Member
Racial resentment was a better predictor of Trump support than Romney support. And was an explanatory variable in voting patterns based on education among whites.
Racial resentment also leads to skewed view of unemployment and the economy. I.e. higher racial animus among whites was correlated with perception of increasing unemployment despite it falling in 2012. Or as Michael Tesler put in his headline: Economic anxiety isn't driving racial resentment. Racial resentment is driving economic anxiety.
Data shows an increased association between the Democratic candidate and aiding black people.
Barack Obama won Indiana in 2008. He visited it 5 times in his first term. He helped bring unemployment there down. And it voted for Rmoney.
I'm not sure why it's astonishing to people that:
1) voting for Obama doesn't mean you can't be racist.
2) this campaign was more explicitly racially driven than past.
3) President Obama, while an inherent symbol of black America did not talk about it much in his first term or prior; and when he did there was backlash like that experienced in his second term.
4) the general landscape of racial issues in politics has changed from 2012 and 2008 and 2004 and so on.
5) the prospect of large numbers of people being something you consider bad, in this case racist, does not make it implausible.
This doesn't mean Clinton ran a good campaign, I mean it actually amounts to a critique in that she clearly talked to much and too explicitly about racial issues. And certain white people did not like that very much.
Racial resentment also leads to skewed view of unemployment and the economy. I.e. higher racial animus among whites was correlated with perception of increasing unemployment despite it falling in 2012. Or as Michael Tesler put in his headline: Economic anxiety isn't driving racial resentment. Racial resentment is driving economic anxiety.
Data shows an increased association between the Democratic candidate and aiding black people.
Barack Obama won Indiana in 2008. He visited it 5 times in his first term. He helped bring unemployment there down. And it voted for Rmoney.
I'm not sure why it's astonishing to people that:
1) voting for Obama doesn't mean you can't be racist.
2) this campaign was more explicitly racially driven than past.
3) President Obama, while an inherent symbol of black America did not talk about it much in his first term or prior; and when he did there was backlash like that experienced in his second term.
4) the general landscape of racial issues in politics has changed from 2012 and 2008 and 2004 and so on.
5) the prospect of large numbers of people being something you consider bad, in this case racist, does not make it implausible.
This doesn't mean Clinton ran a good campaign, I mean it actually amounts to a critique in that she clearly talked to much and too explicitly about racial issues. And certain white people did not like that very much.
capitalCORN
Member
Ads aren't the only content delivery system. Did you see the second link? The media overshadowed her policies for 'controversy'.
For all the issues we have on the Pacific Coast, we're still blue.
If you actually read the speech and this is your takeaway I frankly think you're just not arguing in good faith.
Could lower black turnout in WI be offset by higher black turnout in CA/NY/etc?
soundscream
Member
You are a real peice of work.
I ask you to defend your bull shit statement you point me to a speech.
I ask for a specific example to back up your claim, you tell me to read it.
I take time out of my day to read it and dont see the bull shit you claim and you call me out for it.
I dont know you, but as a black man in America I dont see any evidence to support your statement.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
This isn't exactly right, a large part of the reason unemployment is dropping is because of people dropping out of the workforce, which means just looking at employment as "oh it's under 5%" is ignoring that many people are unemployed because they feel unemployable.
Trump's success was in linking economic problems with certain demographics (since his main base is just normal suburban Republicans still) with rising immigration and increasing diversity. People (who are already probably kinda racist) observe that both demographics are changing and their lot in life has significantly grown worse, between the fact that they're literally dying and their children will have worse lives than they did. The reasons for this are complex and mostly lay at the fault of rich people, but Trump played into existing racism in these groups to win them over and the result is gross.
I think the Democrats should be more clear about who is actually at fault for the destruction of these people's lives and community and show that the only path to success is through joining with minorities against their real enemy. Maybe that's impossible to sustain, but I think it's the only moral option going forward and the only path to sustainable prosperity.
Or, as it was sung about the RFK black-blue coalition, "The blacks in Gary love him, the Poles all fill his hall; there are no ethnic problems on the Ruthless Cannonball."
neurosisxeno
Member
No. Because Democrats are guaranteed to win those states anyway. Wisconsin has consistently gone Blue, but it was more of a swing state than something like California or NY which have massive cities which heavily favor Democrats. Due to first-past-the-post Winner Take All Electoral Votes, doesn't matter if you win Wisconsin by 100 votes out 100,000. The same is true in reverse, doesn't matter if you win California by 400 votes or 4,000,000 votes.
I feel like you only read the first 10 words of my response. It wasn't in her ads, the media wasn't covering it, and she also wasn't going to those places to tell them in person. And during the debates she mostly told people to go to her website to read the policy proposals. If she's not going to the people to make the case for her policies, but is instead going to fundraisers in the cities to raise money from the people that are outsourcing jobs and shrinking wages, that tells people something about what her priorities actually are. You and I might agree that that is not a 100% fair assessment, or even particularly accurate, but all of that added up to rural people trusting fucking Trump over her. Which should be embarrassing as shit.
capitalCORN
Member
And Trump was an obvious fascist. His opening salvo was grand bigotry towards Mexicans. This is what rural Americans wanted.
I think people are overstating the white vote for Obama. Looking at results from 2008 and 2012, Obama received 43% of the white vote in 2008 and that lowered to just 39% in 2012. Clinton got 37% of the white vote in 2016 and that's just not that huge of a difference. Granted, it's enough in a race as close as it was (and she did win the popular vote, lets not forget) but it's a mistake to believe that it was some overwhelming percent of whites that voted in Obama and turned against the Dems and Hillary 4 years later.
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Kxb-bUic...8jKNLk1gtiU1B5A623g_AgCLcB/s1600/2016race.png
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2012/
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2008/
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Kxb-bUic...8jKNLk1gtiU1B5A623g_AgCLcB/s1600/2016race.png
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2012/
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2008/
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
The point is not just the "white" vote but the geography and class of the white vote, both of which are key factors in this election.
Those men in that Milwaukee barber shop didn't do this. That 1 percent drop in voter turnout, are you really worried about offsetting it? Well maybe people should have given a single goddamn about voter suppression then.
shinra-bansho
Member
That wasn't just a random statement about white people feelings. It was the result of examining ANES data for people's perception of unemployment in 2004 under Bush and 2012 under Obama.
They also looked at the same group of people.
/|\
The composition changed, and understanding how/why it did so and the implications of that is super important.
The reason hilary did not do significantly worse with white voters overall then obama was because she was able to tie or win white college educated voters while obama probably only won then barely in 2008 and lost them in 2012.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
Maine's 2nd congressional district swung hard for Trump, and let me tell you from experience dealing with these people, the main reasons was not economic anxiety.
Ooccoo
Member
Russia is responsible...and ignorance
Whom_Gods_Annoy
Banned
I dont think that Schumer quote about abandoning the blue wall can be posted enough. And the fact that both Bill and Obama said this would be a terrible strategy yet Hillary chose to ignore their advice.
You can point at all of these reasons for why Trump won, but when you are competing against the most disliked candidate in history it will always, always be your campaign to lose, and she blew it big time. I voted for Hillary without hesitation, but I believe the fault almost entirely rests on her.
You can point at all of these reasons for why Trump won, but when you are competing against the most disliked candidate in history it will always, always be your campaign to lose, and she blew it big time. I voted for Hillary without hesitation, but I believe the fault almost entirely rests on her.
cheezcake
Member
I just read the entire speech and there's not a single moment where he suggests for a second that "America is past racism". He actually pretty explicitly says there are active current racial issues that we need to address and defeat.
Great speech though. Gotta wonder how most of gaf would react to this passage if it came from a different source though.
I gotta ask, did you recently read the speech? Maybe you're remembering the wrong one.
Yeh I don't see anything which supports that statement either dude.
Is it? Because he is close to being historically unpopular after like 2 months. I would not be shocked to see him with a sub 30% approval rating in another month or two.
Yes, he ran as a fascist, but he also had a strong jobs and economics message for people in rural areas. You can't fully 100% pull the two apart. I reject your "Hillary can do no wrong, but rural America is just backwards" view, in part, because it's exceedingly pessimistic. It says to me "Democrats are just properly fucked for the foreseeable future". Yet we know that isn't 100% true, as Democrats have won elections by wide margins within the last 10 years and that Trump has terrible approval ratings. He was, and is, completely beatable in an election, if we can manage not to nominate the second most disliked candidate ever again in 2020,
shinra-bansho
Member
Democrats have been fucked in rural areas since forever.
More fun tidbits, in relation to the near-election furor over ACA premiums.
More fun tidbits, in relation to the near-election furor over ACA premiums.
Yeah I thought it was obvious the "tell 'em what they want to hear" cheap sales pitch won the day here.
You'll get your jobs back.
I'll restore American values.
America first.
All of it was heavily targeting that demographic and they went for it with a complete lack of caution or critical thinking.
You'll get your jobs back.
I'll restore American values.
America first.
All of it was heavily targeting that demographic and they went for it with a complete lack of caution or critical thinking.
ZackieChan
Member
But isn't the article about people that voted Obama and switched?
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
I don't see what's so puzzling about those who previously voted for Obama then went for Trump.
If you are severely disappointed by Obama whom you've put your voice in, and that despite your vote for him things don't change for the better for you (despite the whole CHANGE thing), wouldn't it just be natural to move your vote to someone coming form the opposite party? Why would you continue to vote for a party that disappoint you?
If you are severely disappointed by Obama whom you've put your voice in, and that despite your vote for him things don't change for the better for you (despite the whole CHANGE thing), wouldn't it just be natural to move your vote to someone coming form the opposite party? Why would you continue to vote for a party that disappoint you?
Lord Frieza
Member
Need receipts
PastorOfMuppets
Banned
Almost every reason for Donald's Trump victory that doesn't begin with "racism" doesn't hold up to even the most basic scrutiny:
Obama in 2012 lost the white vote; only 39% of the white vote went to him. Clinton in 2016 only got 37% of the white vote. White people DO NOT VOTE DEMOCRAT. It has literally been decades since a Democrat has won the white vote (regardless of whether they win or lose the election).
The economic anxiety argument has also been worn and tired as well. Why do white people even get to use that excuse to begin with? When Bernie Sanders lost the primary, nobody claimed it was #blackanxiety that lost it for him. Black people have never supported Farrakhan for president. It just seems that anytime white people don't get their way they look for people to blame but when they fuck up, they look for excuses.
Obama in 2012 lost the white vote; only 39% of the white vote went to him. Clinton in 2016 only got 37% of the white vote. White people DO NOT VOTE DEMOCRAT. It has literally been decades since a Democrat has won the white vote (regardless of whether they win or lose the election).
The economic anxiety argument has also been worn and tired as well. Why do white people even get to use that excuse to begin with? When Bernie Sanders lost the primary, nobody claimed it was #blackanxiety that lost it for him. Black people have never supported Farrakhan for president. It just seems that anytime white people don't get their way they look for people to blame but when they fuck up, they look for excuses.
ZackieChan
Member
Less people voting Democrat when a white person is running = racism?
4 out of 10 equals none?
I'll just disregard your nonsense post.
You realize Obama loved Kaine and almost picked an inexperienced Kaine over Biden as VP right?
ZackieChan
Member
That doesn't mean it's​ a good idea.
soundscream
Member
She wasn't a bad candidate but she ran a horrible campain. Picking Kaine was also a mistake, he was the boring pick and he didnt energize anyone to want to vote for her.
theignoramus
Member
theignoramus
Member
Cosigned. I don't want to hear about them being duped or tricked either because the majority of working class voters in the Hispanic and Black community never fell under the spell of that orange piece of shit.
How about these people take responsibility for a shitty voting record that goes back to Ronald Reagan.
Kaine was such an obvious calculating choice. It's like he's picked for checking off a series of boxes, but not because he is otherwise interesting or inspiring. It seems Obama realized that along the way.
It's like he as picked by Hillary because he can record Spanish Language ads, is nominally pro life in the least scary possible way, is Catholic (IIRC), and comes from a Battleground state. Who cares if he is boring!
theignoramus
Member
The GOP successfully pushed a narrative that Obama was part of a war on cops and too biased in favor of Black Americans. You could feel the shift when he came out and said Trayvon Martin could've been his son. That kicked White racial anxiety into overdrive.
Please see: http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=232963076
When they were financially hurting, and the reality of their economic anxiety started to match or exceed their perception, they stopped using their racial bias as a voting predictor. However, as soon as the economy improved their racial bias became the strongest predictor of their vote again.
Definitely, Hillary was lazy and stupid to an extent that not even the rookie Trump was - which is saying a lot. They both flew home every night yet Hillary also had months of no press conferences, skipped WI, let Trump outcampaign her on the trail and media, and like you said ignored alarm bells from Obama/Bernie/Bill/MI primary/Brexit/etc. It was like she coasted after decades and billion$ of prep work, and/or was deathly afraid of the FBI and toxic ratings. Hillary completely ignored Obama's work ethic or the amount of battleground state offices he had in 2012 (over twice as many). Such stupid risks from a campaign veteran.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked