Support NeoGAF

[Chaos2Frozen]

I think this topic was brought up in the nuclear fallout of the election but it seems now that yes- all those Obama voters did just turn racists.

 

[Brinbe]

This assumes that people, the electorate, ever actually hold Trump/Republicans accountable for their actual record when oftentimes they don't... or rather that they'd go vote D instead as a counter-measure. Logically, you'd think they would after this disaster of a Presidency, but you look at his approval numbers among Republicans and you wonder.

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

Accept no other answer besides "they were stupid."

 

[Machina]

So why take so much offence to BLM? Do they think the killings are justified by some fucked up "you get what you deserve" principle? Is it cause the cops are usually white, so the racial tribalism instinct kicks in?

Race is not a sport.

 

[Sunster]

I don't want them back. I want republicans to keep winning so they completely destroy everything and they suffer along with the rest of the minorities.

poor racist whites are more racist because they are desperate to prove their superiority.

 

[sphagnum]

That makes the assumption that there exists an economic populism that would override the racism.

Why vote for Clinton, with a populist economic policy, when you can vote for Trump with a "populist" economic "policy" AND the racism?

Trump has massive disapproval ratings. His hardcore base will love him until the end but the people we are talking about are "moderates" who are relatively easily swayed by personality and fears.

Don't put up a boring person with complex and unclear solutions. Put up someone who comes across as a fighter for the "common man" and you should be able to at least pick off a chunk of these voters. Combine that with a strong defense of civil rights issues so that non-white-male voters aren't getting tossed under the bus. There's a risk that these Obama to Trump voters will be turned off by that but considering how soft their support for Trump is, that may be overridden by a Bernie type who can stack Trump without seeming like being a hypocrite for being an "elite". The reason Hillary's attacks on Trump didn't work was partially that her own platform was unclear to voters but also because they didn't like or trust her. The viewer her and Trump as two sides of the same "elite" coin. That's much harder to pin on a raging populist.

 

[IrishNinja]

man if BLM made you support the most openly racist candidate in forever, you're a fuckin bigot

just make peace with it & stop pretending, you ain't fooling anyone

Race is not a sport.

when whites flock to this shit in the most open example of identity politics we've seen & pretty much champion anything that upsets "liberals" it's hard to argue otherwise

 

[hughesta]

bigotry is the power that is driving this country forward right now. I really don't know how to stop it. Fuck every last person who put us in this situation

 

[SolarPowered]

So democrats pretty much need to craft a message that makes trump and republicans look like the elites while they are the non-elites.This would work better once trump starts to do more damage.

They also need a messenger that people will actually believe. Hillary was right and she was qualified, but clearly not enough (three million should be enough, but the electoral college is a disaster) people believed her. Say what you will about Bernie, but most people on either side of the aisle actually believed he meant what he said.

 

[ScatheZombie]

Regardless of whether or not Dems put forth a poor candidate, racist whites still carry the blame for Trump's win.
Not liking Hilary doesn't mean it's a okay to vote for a racist.

It's actually probably more sexism than racism.

Because the racists have almost always voted Republican anyway and Democrats still managed to win. Unless you think the first black President didn't make racists come out the fucking woodwork to vote against him - and he still won, twice.

 

[Chaos2Frozen]

They also need a messenger that people will actually believe. Hillary was right and she was qualified, but clearly not enough (three million should be enough, but the electoral college is a disaster) people believed her. Say what you will about Bernie, but most people on either side of the aisle actually believed he meant what he said.

Until Fox News comes for him.

 

[Shadowhelper]

It's actually probably more sexism than racism.

Because the racists have almost always voted Republican anyway and Democrats still managed to win. Unless you think the first black President didn't make racists come out the fucking woodwork to vote against him - and he still won, twice.

Whole point of the article is how many borderline racists who voted for Obama, all turned on the dems for various reasons, because identity became important due to things like BLM, growing hatred of black and muslim people and Trump driving a wedge between people.

If it was a Sarah Palin type, I doubt those voters would've had a problem.

 

[The Shadow]

So why take so much offence to BLM? Do they think the killings are justified by some fucked up "you get what you deserve" principle? Is it cause the cops are usually white, so the racial tribalism instinct kicks in?

Race is not a sport.

I used to have a lot of massively left leaning, hippie-dippy people on my Facebook that were pretty much the last people you'd peg as being racist, because they were all for equality and peace and all that good stuff.

But the whole BLM movement activated something in them. Out of the blue, it's "all lives matter". It's racial defensiveness. They like the idea of equality, not the actual practice of equality, which entails giving up superiority.

Because the racists have almost always voted Republican anyway and Democrats still managed to win. Unless you think the first black President didn't make racists come out the fucking woodwork to vote against him - and he still won, twice.

It would probably help to read the article. They specifically talk about soft racist, who despite their racism, voted for Obama because of his policies, versus voting for Trump, who for them was a win-win.

 

[Enzom21]

So why take so much offence to BLM? Do they think the killings are justified by some fucked up "you get what you deserve" principle? Is it cause the cops are usually white, so the racial tribalism instinct kicks in?

Race is not a sport.

The only power a poor white person has is being white in a society built around white supremacy.
Now if said poor white person sees things becoming more equal, they are going to cling to that tiny shred of power they possess.

It's actually probably more sexism than racism.

Because the racists have almost always voted Republican anyway and Democrats still managed to win. Unless you think the first black President didn't make racists come out the fucking woodwork to vote against him - and he still won, twice.

This is a portrait of the most common Obama-to-Trump voter: a white American who wants government intervention in the economy but holds negative, even prejudiced, views toward racial, ethnic, and religious minorities. In 2012, these voters seemed to value economic liberalism over a white, Christian identity and backed Obama over Romney. By 2016, the reverse was true:

Did you actually read the article the thread you're posting in is about?

 

[Suikoguy]

It's actually probably more sexism than racism.

Because the racists have almost always voted Republican anyway and Democrats still managed to win. Unless you think the first black President didn't make racists come out the fucking woodwork to vote against him - and he still won, twice.

There are multiple levels of racism.
It's not an off/on switch.

 

[kirblar]

This chart makes me think that it was the xenophobic Brexit-esque racism that was in play specifically w/ Dem defectors, moreso than BLM and other related issues (which was probably mostly an issue in terms of activating/energizing trump/fox news voters)

Clinton voters were actually slightly worse on AA issues, but the hard shift right on immigration and Muslims and foreign trade w/ the Bernie crew is definitely there.

 

[cdyhybrid]

I think Bouie's point is that Trump's actually governing is anything but populist economics, letting you fight on that front with a bare minimum amount of effort.

Trump benefitted from having 0 record. If he makes it to relection, he's got one to run against. (This again goes to a point Dems need to keep in mind for future primaries: nom people who aren't exposed)

Yeah, except the track record hasn't kept these people from voting Republican for decades.

 

[SolarPowered]

Until Fox News comes for him.

Bernie wasn't gunning for those Seth Rich conspiracy theorists with free college and I would expect that younger democrat faces running in 2020 and beyond have way less baggage the right wing smear machine can latch onto. Obama's age and shorter Washington experience compared to Hillary actually worked in his favor at the time.

 

[kirblar]

Yeah, except the track record hasn't kept these people from voting Republican for decades.

The amount of voters we need to swing back in those states (or get to vote) in the states we lost is tiny.

 

[cdyhybrid]

The amount of voters we need to swing back in those states (or get to vote) in the states we lost is tiny.

If only there were a large group of people that we didn't necessarily have to convince to stop hating minorities and women to sway.

If only...

 

[PopeReal]

I love how racists and their votes are not the problem, the issue is how to coddle them.

 

[Abounder]

And Obama had to work his ass off to get those results. Agreed Dems need a populist, one that won't fly home every night or skip states to give the birther a run for his money in 2020

Goddamn disgusting that Trump has been elected with all the racist rhetoric, especially against the Khan family

 

[mo60]

These detailed pieces make the situation too complicated. In American presidential elections there's about a 4-point handicap on average when the incumbent party tries to win a third term. Hillary under performed Obama's 2012 performance by about 3 points.

Actually she underperformed obama in 2012 by like 1.9 points.

 

[mo60]

They also need a messenger that people will actually believe. Hillary was right and she was qualified, but clearly not enough (three million should be enough, but the electoral college is a disaster) people believed her. Say what you will about Bernie, but most people on either side of the aisle actually believed he meant what he said.

Yeah. They definitely need a good messenger and not someone like hilary clinton.

 

[devilhawk]

The only true take away from a study like this is how amazingly apparent it is that Obama was a much, much better candidate than Hillary. Just across the board. Getting sizable numbers of racists that hate your very existence to then vote for you twice?

 

[Yoshi]

What do Americans undertsand under "economic liberalism"? Strong social security systems are absolutely not what I would identify as liberal, but rather social(-democratic / -ist). In economical matters, I would have classified Trump as extremely liberal, trying to abolish wellfare systems and loweing taxes.

 

[MWS Natural]

poor racist whites are more racist because they are desperate to prove their superiority.

Exactly. No way to 'win' these people over. Just let them continue to vote against their own benefits until they perish (it's happening already).

Yeah. Destroy the country. That'll learn 'em.

/s

Yeah it sucks but I'm good. I'm in a position that Trump's policies will benefit me economically so let them fuck themselves over. Like Dave Chappelle said I'm going to lay low, enjoy these tax breaks and ride these 4-8 years out.

 

[kirblar]

What do Americans undertsand under "economic liberalism"? Strong social security systems are absolutely not what I would identify as liberal, but rather social(-democratic / -ist). In economical matters, I would have classified Trump as extremely liberal, trying to abolish wellfare systems and loweing taxes.

Liberal would be the former, conservative the latter, here in the states. Libertarians like to throw out "Classical Liberal" to distinguish for the EU definition you're using.

 

[Yoshi]

Liberal would be the former, conservative the latter, here in the states. Libertarians like to throw out "Classical Liberal" to distinguish for the EU definition you're using.

So you are just calling social(-democratic / -ist) policies liberal? I don't quite get how this is true to the meaning of the word, because a social wellfare system is, by definition, not a liberal thing, since it forces people to give some money to the state, and, in case of super rich people, this is not the most profitable way to go about this, because the expected overall cost for rich people would be lower if they just paid for every health issue themselves - at no extreme personal risk, because they would have the money to pay for even life-threatening issues.

Mind you, I am totally in favour of strong social wellfare systems and I think it is batshit insane that Sanders didn't become president just on the topic of establishing free education and reliable social security for everyone. But I absolutely do not get how the word "liberal" applies to this.

Needless to say I have an ambivalent feeling towards the concept of liberalism, because I think everyone should be free to do whatever one wants as long as it does not harm anyone else (sleep with whoever you want, get an assisted suicide, run around naked if you feel like it, marry whoever you want, if you want, marry 10 people and so on), but when it comes to money and social security, I think that a strong state and a strong social wellfare system is absolutely required in a competitive economical system, for fairness reasons, for social peace and to prevent cruelty.

 

[Trokil]

I absolutely love this topic.

So many people are ok with losing elections instead of promoting economic policies everybody would benefit of. Because they rather want it their way and are ok with handing over the supreme court to the Republicans for another 20-30 years.

If I can’t have everything it is better to have nothing. I guess the Republicans will not complain. Purity over everything.

 

[pigeon]

I absolutely love this topic.

So many people are ok with losing elections instead of promoting economic policies everybody would benefit of. Because they rather want it their way and are ok with handing over the supreme court to the Republicans for another 20-30 years.

If I can’t have everything it is better to have nothing. I guess the Republicans will not complain. Purity over everything.

It's just really sad that you read this thread and think that this is what people are saying.

 

[ZealousD]

Yeah it sucks but I'm good. I'm in a position that Trump's policies will benefit me economically so let them fuck themselves over. Like Dave Chappelle said I'm going to lay low, enjoy these tax breaks and ride these 4-8 years out.

So basically.... fuck you got mine?

 

[Slayven]

Hey, I personally believed the second one myself. *shrug*

The irony is that I had a prejudice of racist people. I assumed that for a racist, race is the most important factor, when apparently some of them actually have legit priorities over their racism. I would have never guessed this in a million years. For a racist, I always thought it was white above all else.

Donald Sterling owned a NBA team. Racists will rationalize someone being one of the good ones as long as it benefits them.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

There's a lot of people out there who voted for a black man even though he was still just a n-word to them, but then he started actually doing controversial things like you know, addressing racial issues head on ( that's race-baiting in a post-racism world, to these folks), which is such a divider in chief move, y'all have no idea. He also addressed gun reform, which ramped up a NRA/Koch/Republican brigade of absolute filth, and that was more than game over for those boys ever voting for his successor, that shrill 'coming for yur guns', Hillary Clinton.

 

[kirblar]

So you are just calling social(-democratic / -ist) policies liberal? I don't quite get how this is true to the meaning of the word, because a social wellfare system is, by definition, not a liberal thing, since it forces people to give some money to the state, and, in case of super rich people, this is not the most profitable way to go about this, because the expected overall cost for rich people would be lower if they just paid for every health issue themselves - at no extreme personal risk, because they would have the money to pay for even life-threatening issues.

Mind you, I am totally in favour of strong social wellfare systems and I think it is batshit insane that Sanders didn't become president just on the topic of establishing free education and reliable social security for everyone. But I absolutely do not get how the word "liberal" applies to this.

Needless to say I have an ambivalent feeling towards the concept of liberalism, because I think everyone should be free to do whatever one wants as long as it does not harm anyone else (sleep with whoever you want, get an assisted suicide, run around naked if you feel like it, marry whoever you want, if you want, marry 10 people and so on), but when it comes to money and social security, I think that a strong state and a strong social wellfare system is absolutely required in a competitive economical system, for fairness reasons, for social peace and to prevent cruelty.

It's just how our language evolved differently regarding the political sphere here in the US. Liberal became left-of-center, Conservative stayed right-of-center.

I totally understand what you mean regarding the political/economic distinction (my major was Econ from a school w/ a lot of libertarians!) but it's just not used in common parlance that way unless you're in libertarian circles or explicitly talking about Econ and other things on an axis of state intervention<->lassez faire. Libertarianism (what you would probably call "liberalism") is great in theory but falls completely apart in practice for the same reason far left policy ides- they vastly overestimate the human race. You have to have a balance, and the balance will never stay static.

 

[Real Hero]

I don't want them back. I want republicans to keep winning so they completely destroy everything and they suffer along with the rest of the minorities.

And everyone else...

 

[CrocMother]

So yes, white people failed America, but how do I blame anyone but them. And before you say I'm racist, I've dated white people, so I'm not racist.

White people are looking out for themselves. They've got no fucking empathy because they live in a bubble. Saying as a white person.

Middle/Upper class white people could give two shits about poor whites btw.

 

[Boylamite]

It's cool, as long as you have white friends!

He's right.

 

[hawk2025]

"Economic populism", for these voters, means:

- coal
- pollution
- oil
- fracking
- racism


If y'all want to adopt that platform, you are on your own. I'm not throwing my brothers under the bus for these shits.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

"WE ARE GOING TO BE DOING SO MUCH WINNING!"

Idiots. Anyone who voted Trump deserves ridicule.

Well, I mean, the only people stupider than trump are those who support him...

 

[Hubbl3]

If only there were a large group of people that we didn't necessarily have to convince to stop hating minorities and women to sway.



If only...

Yeah, I think this is the much better approach. Fuck trying to win those pieces of shit back. Let the GOP keep 'em. The people that didn't vote or had obstacles put in front of them that kept them from voting are a much better demographic to go after.

 

[madstarr12]

How many more of these are there gonna be? I think we've gotten an idea already on how deplorable people voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, but then got conned in voting for Trump in 2016.

Democrats in the future should just Ignore these deplorables and the "both sides are the same" people. Focus on tying together new voters, and get-out-to-vote efforts towards currently registered democrats and left-leaning people who are at least reasonable.

 

[excelsiorlef]

White people are looking out for themselves. They've got no fucking empathy because they live in a bubble. Saying as a white person.

Middle/Upper class white people could give two shits about poor whites btw.

No they're not.

Most white people actually get hurt by GOP policies too... but they're ok with that because the GOP will punish The Other

 

[Yaboosh]

I don't want them back. I want republicans to keep winning so they completely destroy everything and they suffer along with the rest of the minorities.

This feels awfully risky.

 

[zelas]

No they're not.

Most white people actually get hurt by GOP policies too... but they're ok with that because the GOP will punish The Other

Nah. A lot of white people decidedly have no empathy. There is a local sports talk radio station in DC with a host who regularly talks about how protesters are the worst. That Trump haters are just overreacting because its not like his policies are going to kill anyone. I don't have to describe the bubble lifestyle he leads anymore than stating that he regularly complains about having to spend $10k on travel every year. Think about how many white people say in one way or another that "its just politics."

Edit - And that's just people who can afford to live in that kind of bubble. NPR often did stories on upset/flipped Obama voters who have the same sentiments despite Republicans implementing policies that literally put them in the same aggrieved positions as those they push aside.

 

[norm9]

Without reading the article, I'd guess they didn't want to deal with a woman president and what she would do on a global stage during her monthly crazies.

 

[theCalamity]

I absolutely love this topic.

So many people are ok with losing elections instead of promoting economic policies everybody would benefit of. Because they rather want it their way and are ok with handing over the supreme court to the Republicans for another 20-30 years.

If I can’t have everything it is better to have nothing. I guess the Republicans will not complain. Purity over everything.

So we should court racists to the party. That's what you're saying. We should ally with racists and bigots.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Nah. A lot of white people decidedly have no empathy. There is a local sports talk radio station in DC with a host who regularly talks about how protesters are the worst. That Trump haters are just overreacting because its not like his policies are going to kill anyone. I don't have to describe the bubble lifestyle he leads anymore than stating that he regularly complains about having to spend $10k on travel every year. Think about how many white people say in one way or another that "its just politics."

Edit - And that's just people who can afford to live in that kind of bubble. NPR often did stories on upset/flipped Obama voters who have the same sentiments despite Republicans implementing policies that literally put them in the same aggrieved positions as those they push aside.

My point is white voters (outside the very rich) are not looking out for themselves when they vote Republican.

Don't know why you said nah when your edit is similar to what I was saying.