There is much talk about race, and certainly Trump is awful.
But a question: why would race motivate someone to vote for Barack Obama and then Donald Trump? You would think if they were a racist they wouldn’t have voted for Obama in the first place.
I am sure I am wrong to ask the question.
But the data kind of screams to ask it.
Notice the swing in poorest of poors, too. Guess those 60M Trump voters weren’t ALL middle income small businessmen and racists. (We would have a damn sight better economy if our middle class were still that large.)
Well, I saw one piece of data that said male AA were 8% lower than female AA Clinton voters. Whether absentee or Trump voters, I cannot say.
Others in diary comments here have pointed at Hispanic male numbers, too, being down.
That will get them to switch to “it was sexism.”
I’m so sick of candidates and pundits dividing us on macro-demographics as if we’re all drones that base our votes on gonads or ovaries, skin color, and where we happen to live with little to no regard to individual plight and blight.
Gender cut no ice for many white women.
White women non-college graduates 34 vs 62 (per 538)
This was my experience with the non-college white women I work with. HRC and her policies should have been right there with support for working mothers but to a person they said, “Never Hillary”. “I don’t trust her”
Are they rabid misogynists?
We can’t fall into the trap of blaming the voters.
R
HRC and her policies should have been right there with support for working mothers but to a person they said, “Never Hillary”. “I don’t trust her”
Think about that. The one consistent theme that Hillary has rhetorically championed throughout her working life is concern and support for working mothers and children. Yet, where are the accomplishments over those forty years?
Far more difficult for white non-college grad women to identify with Clinton than for college grads.
White non-college grad women may also have viewed Clinton as someone that didn’t make her own way to the top and that has always had someone (or many) clearing a path for her while she did a lot of glad-handing and has had no substantive accomplishes of her own after graduating from college. And still she had to cheat along the way.
Well, they identified with Princess Di, but maybe that was the reports of how her husband’s family treated her.
Plus…after the polling debacle three days ago…why would anyone even think of believing yet more jive statistics!!!???
Clomp, clomp, clomp.
And the clones go marching on.
Unbelievable.
AG
bc “big brains” don’t admit any error or failing on their part regardless of the all the evidence. Plus, technically the polling was more wanting than wrong. It was the interpretation of the polling that was dreadful. After having to admit that my interpretation of the ’14 polls was poor, I made what I thought were adequate adjustments. Therefore, could see that FL, OH, and NC were gone at least two months ago while all the “big brains” never really got there. I continued to follow CO and got that one right. What I didn’t do was follow and inspect the polls in PA, MI, and WI. Complacency is an easy way to stumble.
Y’oughta get out more, Marie. I know it’s hard to do for many people because of practical reasons, but if you had done so through the heartland with your eyes and ears open I will bet that you would have seen stuff that contradicted the “It’s common knowledge!!!” polls so thoroughly that you would have never again put any stock in them whatsoever.
I did…not exactly by choice because traveling is part of the way I do my own job and I most often choose not to travel on TSA-supervised planes if possible because they are:
1-Insulting to my own being
2-Way too expensive
and
3-For a less-than-7-hour-or-so drive, planes are usually slower than an automobile, door-to-door. Gotta get to the airport at least 2 hours before the flight, usually need to wait an hour or more after “take-off” time (at least in the NYC and other large U.S. metropolitan areas), often need to change planes (more waiting and concomitant anxiety) and when you get wherever you are going (If indeed you do get there.) It’s another 2 or 3 hours to get your baggage and go wherever you are going.
Meanwhile, I leave my neighborhood in my car and drive through the real America, radio on and antennae engaged. On a trip from NYC through mid-PA, thence up to Rochester and finally back thru Ithaca NY and the middle of NY State in early March of this year I was convinced that Trump had a much better chance than even of winning. Subsequent trips several hundred miles up and down the east coast, into the NJ/PA/upstate eastern/middle and (by plane) into Alaska by way of Seattle only served to reinforce that original perception.
Polls? Statistics? If you do not do them yourself or they are not done by someone absolutely trustworthy they are not worth the bits and bytes of which they are made.
Bet on it.
ASG
Some people don’t do travel well. It’s a physical limitation — my body revolts at the process of getting there. Once there with a recuperation period, I’m find. Limiting my work travel schedule to the absolute minimum was problematical for my employers. Doubly so when they saw me in the field traipsing through construction sites and the quick and easy rapport I established with builders and engineers.
None of us has the time to go everywhere and see everything, and most definitely not in the depth required to achieve more than a superficial understanding. So, as with most aspects of our lives, we have to rely on others that are or have been there and hope that those we choose to listen to know where of they speak.
But you missed my point — a close and objective look at the numbers in PA, MI, and OH may have been sufficient to call the CW into question. As I didn’t look at the numbers in real time, I don’t know if it would or wouldn’t have, but I don’t have any more personal experience knowledge of CO, FL, OH, and NC than I do of the the three others, and I got those right. (Okay, I lived in PA for four years and it’s probably more of a cipher to me now than before I lived there at all.)
As I said…”I know [travel is] hard to do for many people because of practical reasons…”
But the whole numbers thing? You have a background in statistics, right? You must know that it’s not “the numbers,” it’s the people who compile them that are important. And the people for whom they are working.
My son is an environmental biologist at a very prestigious Ivy League university. During his studies he had to become a very good statistician. His pet peeves inside of his department are the sloppy statistics with which he must often deal and the self-interested “scientists” who too often skew their statistics to their own benefit.
Same same here.
Trust not, want not.
You have good instincts. Congratulations. Always believe your instincts if they argue against the numbers.
Always, especially in this multinational, big-money hustle world.
AG
Yea, here is what I said on MONDAY
If you think Clinton has a 99% of winning tomorrow you do not understand politics.
I posted this 2 days ago. This is the effect of a move in polling on Clinton’s expected EV.
photo EV_zps0cmrmoaj.gif
Here is the 5 day polling average in a number of states:
Pennsylvania 2.7
North Carolina 1.5
Florida 1.3
Nevada 1
NH -.2
Ohio -2.5
If polling misses, it will miss in the same direction. THE ERRORS WILL NOT BE RANDOM.
And there is ample evidence such shifts occur.
Except you’re making an absolute claim based on the fact that several states swung in the same direction away from the pre-election polling. Yet, using RCP avg – NV swung in the opposite direction, NH didn’t swing at all, CO swung by a mere 0.2%.
FL and NC look like typical to me. In that once they reached what appeared to be settled (in Trump’s favor in this case), the final number for the leader would increase. (Just as we see in almost all recounts, the leader picks of more additional votes than the lagging candidate.) I don’t know what others were projecting for FL and NC, but I saw both in Trump’s column in the last sixty days.
The same was seen in IA; although Trump’s lead was larger and settled earlier. The DMR “gold standard” (four-way) – had Trump +7 and his actual was +9.6. Johnson shed 2.3 points and Stein 0.3. Clinton gained 2.3 and Trump gained 5.8. The gains were predominately from the 8% DK/Decl/Und. The “mystery box” if you will that is generally assumed to divide up much like those that have already decided.
That is exactly what happened in CO and NH and to only a less than 1% in FL.
Why did Trump’s margin in NC increase by only 3%; whereas in OH it increased by 6.4%? Why did it increase at all in OH?
I need to take a break from this for now, but have a suspicion that what was lurking in the DK/decl/Und box were a high percentage voters too embarrassed to identify as Trump voters.
Can’t discount misogyny entirely.
It had a role, I have no doubt.
Unfortunately, there’s no damn good data from other and previous elections that would reveal if misogyny was at play in this election. You’ve stated often enough that Warren as the nominee would have won; so, why wouldn’t misogyny cause her to lose?
In 2012, Wisconsin chose Tammy Baldwin for one of its Senators. Isn’t she a woman?
Several decades ago, as the first woman in a company’s business line and one of the first in the industry, I fully appreciated that acceptance from many of the men wouldn’t come easy. Interestingly enough, the older men were fine with a woman joining their ranks. It was those nearer in age to me and later on younger than me that were more problematical. OTOH, I also accepted that a “first” can’t get by on merely matching the average performance level of peers; she/he has to do better than that. Not just for her/himself, but also to keep the door open for others like her/him to follow. And stick up for those that follow that perform well enough by reminding superiors that Susie should be evaluated in comparison to Tom, Dick, and Harry and not the first one that had to over-perform if there were ever to be a Susie.
Didn’t say it was misogny, can’t say it wasn’t. I do think that her sex helped her with women more than it hurt with men. I haven’t heard anyone say right out that they wouldn’t vote for her because she’s a woman like I heard people say they wouldn’t vote for Obama because he was black. I did hear her called a lot of sexist names, the most printable being “Hag”, but I really take those as personal rather than sexist.
IMHO she faced less prejudice than Obama but Obama had a better message and is MUCH more personable.
Agree but will wait for better and more complete numbers before firming up my conclusion.
However, there was a clue in the primary results. I think the operating assumption for her ’16 campaign was that she would hold the enthusiasm from her ’08 campaign and add at least half of what Obama got. In general her ’12 primary vote totals lagged what she’d received against Obama. In SC she fell short of her ’08 white voter totals and didn’t capture any of that demographic that went with Edward’s in ’08. Sequels almost never perform as well as the original.
IIRC, in 2008 Obama ran as the Progressive and Clinton ran, even then, as “Back to the Future”.
She ran in both years on her resume. Which IMO has always conflated holding some title/position with actual job performance (like GHWB), doesn’t mention or appropriates the work of others as her own accomplishments, and deletes the long list that demonstrates poor judgment.
Obama ran on a fuzzy, undefined and better vision for America.
“Make America Great Again” captures both the past (that imaginary time when it was great) and future (we goona be great).
All just BS, but with only two viable choices, voters pick whichever poison appeals most to them.
Selecting a leader vs hiring an employee. Or as Admiral Rickover said “You manage things, you lead men!” Italics are his from an Op-ED blasting Naval Academy emphasis on business-style management rather than leadership.
I suppose the theory is “what’s on offer”. RMoney ran a dog whistle racial campaign, with the same “tax cuts create jobs” baloney, but didn’t offer to run the Mexicans out of the country on a rail, as I recall.
It’s also possible that the party switching low income voters were responding to the anti-free trade allure of the carnival barker, not the new, improved racism, as RMoney already had the more committed racists and Trump was just holding on to them with his more potent calls to white supremacy. HRC’s past made any response by her on this free trade point appear very calculating. Of course it seems to indicate that Bernie would have cleaned up with these folks.
And a further complication may be that there are different “white” attitudes across regions, i.e what motivated rust belt whites different than southern whites. And these are national figures, I assume. But the share of white voters nationwide stayed the same? And every major minority group was less afraid of Trump than RMoney? Jeebus.
Romney coined the term self-deport.
Obama’s a charismatic figure. I recognize that many, many people feel inspired by Hillary, but it’s not as many as Obama inspired.
I have no doubt that sexism played a role, and so did decades of effort to marginalize her by the GOP and by a good portion of the media.
Maybe some of the gender gap relative to 2012 is caused by extra votes from women because she’s a woman and Trump is such a misogynist.
Democrats who have defended her should admit that however overblown the many Clinton scandals have been, there’s often some nugget of wince-inducing reality. If the GOP could nail Obama on the same type of scandals they would, but he’s actually run a clean White House. We should celebrate that and look for leaders who can be trusted to do the same. The scandals hurt her.
Obama recognized the great urgency of 2008 – the economic uncertainty, the anger at the Iraq War, the shame of torture. Clinton missed the urgency of 2016.
Maybe it’s as simple as that? She ran a great campaign by all conventional measures, but it’s not a conventional year, and Clinton missed the boat.
There is a lot I agree with in this. She played by the book. Raise a lot of money. Minimize mistakes. Win debates
But she never could find a theme. A 20 second positive explanatio
It was ironically “the economy, stupid”.
Only in certain pockets. And regardless of her rhetoric, “more of the same” hit its expiration date as of 1/13 in those pockets.
Overall, except for the ludicrousness of person Trump, the election replicated that of 2014.
Isn’t this the diary demonstrating shortfalls among low income earners? It sounds like it it about trust, sure, but seems to still be trust about money, and alleviating hardship.
No — it’s the change from D to R (or vice versa) between ’12 and ’16 by voter income bracket. The largest change was among voters in the lowest income bracket. Hillary, like Obama, still won among those in the lowest income bracket, but by a much smaller margin.
That’s what I thought I was saying.
Lowest income bracket is not parsed by race here. She won with the POC plus whatever whites. At least in battleground states. The Big Blues will run up her % overall.
Shared values. Will she look after my interests?
For nearly ONE IN FOUR LOW INCOME OBAMA VOTERS THE ANSWER WAS NO.
Stop and think about that. 1 in 4 low income voters who voted for Obama voted for Trump.
If you hold for race, my guess is 1 in 3 WHITE low income Obama voters switched to Trump.
The Wall Street Journal has an election map showing the race by what seems to be County. The sea of red is shocking. Even in California, only a few pockets of blue. Yes, most of the red is low population, but it tells me at a glance that the blue is cities, only. Trump rules the Suburbs, exurbs, and farm country. Stick a blindfolded pin in the map and nine out of ten times it will be Republican country. Farmers used to be the base of the Democratic Party. I think Democratic tilt to the big dollar corporate farm killed that.
It would be interesting to look at the same map in 2008, 2000, and 1992. I think the results would surprise no one.
Already the word is out that Bill begged the campaign to focus less on urbanistas, minorities, gays, etc… and more on the issues of the middle of the country. But they assumed certain constituencies in Mich, Wis, Penn, etc.. would be there for them and could be ignored. Blacks in NC and other places are saying she didn’t campaign for their vote.
Well, he was always the superior politician.
http://www.salon.com/2016/11/10/hillary-clintons-strategies-cost-hillary-clinton-the-election/
R
Nothing in the linked article claiming that Bill Clinton had a different and superior idea. I take scuttle-butt after the fact that portrays Bill Clinton as a political genius with skepticism because the evidence in real time has always been lacking. He won the presidency twice with less than 50% of the vote, lost Congress two years after his first win and never got it back, his domestic economic policies never favored the working/middle class, and he was a major player in Hillary’s ’08 campaign.
It was in another thread, here is the article-
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-aides-loss-blame-231215
His domestic agenda was not great but he was beginning to remove the stain of Reaganism from the budgetary process. Of course, he couldn’t keep it in his pants and Gore ran away from him so we got W. A weak minded puppet whose only purpose was to push through tax cuts on the top 1%, even in times of war.
R
In real time — 2000 — Bill was furious with Gore for injecting economic populism and moving away from the DLC formulation in his campaign. Anyone that says otherwise is full of bunk.
Bill didn’t come around to “maybe we went too far” with his neoliberal economic policies is fairly recent but not robust nor consistent. If it were otherwise, and particularly after her struggle to put Sanders away early in the race, Hillary would have been out there preaching her new found gospel.
Before the Great Depression, Southern farmers were Democrats and those outside the south were Republicans. Depending of level of economic pain, a portion of those non-southern Republican farmers switched. However, it was never a complete or permanent flip because political affiliation gets passed down from one generation to the next within families and re-thinks don’t happen as often as observers think they do.
That sea of red is deceptive because the population outside of the cities (as a percentage of the total population) has been declining for more than a hundred years.
1900 – farmers = 38% of the national labor force
1990 – farmers = 2.9% of the national labor force
No choice but to move to the city to survive as a wage slave instead of a yeoman (entrepreneur).
The suburbs and exurbs are growing but the core cities are shrinking. That points to Republican dominance unless Democrats can change their message.
“Before the Great Depression, Southern farmers were Democrats and those outside the south were Republicans.”
A legacy of the Civil War. On our Fall trip to Michigan we stopped at the Welcome Center to get a map. I again, reread the plaque commemorating the 24th Michigan in the Civil war. Half died at Gettysburg, only a small fraction returned alive to Michigan after the war. In those days they would have been mostly farmers. I’m sure Southern states have similar history.
Yes, family political legacies/traditions live and often long after the pragmatism of the original decision has lost any sense.
The flip in the south from Dem to GOP took a while to complete, but there has been only a limited flip from GOP to Dem in the states where progressives flourished in the post-Civil War era up through Hoover. The difference might be that Republicans continued working in-state and Democrats have been too dazzled by national politics to bother with all that local/state stuff.
Good point! Also, suburbs should have similar interests as the central cities, but in my experience are usually Republican in reaction to corrupt central city machines. Chicago is the example that I know best, but I think it applies to New York and Detroit as well. Probably Philadelphia and Boston. Don’t know about California or the South. Long ago (’50s and ’60s), suburbanites voted (R) locally and often (D) nationally. Of late there has been very little ticket splitting. As you know, I ascribe this to (D) focus on central city minorities while demonizing white suburbanites. When you continually lambast any group, you can hardly expect them to vote for you. This happened long before “basket of deplorables”. I suppose when playing identity politics rather than policy politics, it’s tricky to not demonize the same people your target group demonizes. Beyond the rhetoric, RR convinced working suburbanites that their taxes go to pay inner city welfare. Well, they do, but not to the extent that people believe. A lot more goes to the MIC and business subsidies.
I firmly believe that the (D) party needs to heal the breach between city and suburbs as well as between white and non-white if it is to survive. Those who believe that demographics is destiny will have a rude awakening. That view is inherently racist and I reject it. People are people. As non-white people get more money they gravitate to the (R) party which promises they can keep more. Greed trumps prejudice.
Wondered today what happened to all the crowing in the week before election day that Democrats were smashing records in early voting?
From what I saw, it was younger people. Apparently, they are fed up with the status quo. I know I would be if I were them. My personal position is good, but I’m sick of continually worrying about SS and my pension which both parties are eying like hungry tigers.
You’re discounting social issues. Gay marriage, Black Lives Matter, equal rights for women, equal rights to health care- all these and more remain controversial and are viciously opposed by many voters.
And the gun issue. Hillary took on the NRA relatively explicitly. It’s necessary in the big picture, but it was a courageous campaign position for which I believe she was punished. The number of Americans who were willing to believe Hillary might meaningfully infringe on their rights to have an arsenal appear to have been disappointingly large in many swing states.
Relatively few Americans own guns, but more Americans appear strongly motivated to vote against gun control than for gun control. Some members of my Union support most every single Labor issue we prioritize, but they strongly oppose the candidates we endorse because of their love of guns and irrational fear that their guns will be confiscated. It’s easy for me to see sexism, racism and other social issues feeding into that irrational fear in an unfortunate chain of toxic cultural trends.
Even on the economic issue, the fact that non-whites and whites were equally considered by the Obama Administration in its policies has been disturbing to many white people at these moments of increased economic vulnerability. Many white people experience this treatment as a comparative loss of rights, using many wildly distorted or invented anecdotes to assist them in doing so.
Across the board, our increasingly pluralistic society is too uncomfortable to bear for a disappointingly large number of Americans.
“Even on the economic issue, the fact that non-whites and whites were equally considered by the Obama Administration in its policies has been disturbing to many white people at these moments of increased economic vulnerability. Many white people experience this treatment as a comparative loss of rights, using many wildly distorted or invented anecdotes to assist them in doing so. “
I haven’t heard this from anyone except one cousin who always was prejudiced as was his father. Remember, I’ve been living and working with white working class blue collar workers for the last dozen years. Some are racist but none complained that Obama favored blacks or thought their rights were threatened, except their right to own guns. Those under 55 pretty uniformly believe they will never see Social Security. I think that is more significant. “It’s the economy, stupid” Where have we heard that before?
Dude, you are deluded.
Consider the opposition to the Affordable Care Act, as one of many examples. Don’t recall any non-whites screaming in town halls and rallies about the terror they felt. Opposition to the Law remains highly polarized by race.
Explain, please.
You are living in an echo chamber.
That’s not a response to a factual statement.
Kaiser Family Foundation poll in October 2016:
We asked: “As you may know, a health reform bill was signed into law in 2010. Given what you know about the health reform law, do you have a generally favorable or generally unfavorable opinion of it?”
White Americans- Favorable 37%, Unfavorable 54%
Hispanic Americans- Favorable 57%, Unfavorable 34%
Black Americans- Favorable 77%, Unfavorable 18%
Why is the public’s response to Obamacare polarized by race? Explain.
Probably because more white Americans already had employer provided health insurance and were worried about losing it.
That was and is an irrational fear. There is nothing in the ACA which makes it more difficult for employers to provide health coverage. Much the opposite, in fact.
Why do Black- and Hispanic-Americans not display the same fear? Many of them have employer-provided health insurance.
The people who have Medicare aren’t worried about losing their employer-provided health plans, yet Medicare beneficiaries were among the most enraged and terrified people at town halls and other public events. Almost every single one of these people were white.
I worked for a health care provider for 25 years. n that time, many people expressed hostility to me about the idea of undeserving, lazy people getting free health care. The complaints were almost always targeted towards black and brown people. This is my experience, and the experiences of people I worked with.
I don’t know what to tell you, Voice. You’re showing a remarkable determination to ignore reality here.
I’m citing actual life experience and you are citing some poll. Isn’t Kaiser in California? I’m talking to people in Illinois.
It’s a national poll.
Have it your way, keep your hate and keep losing elections.
Keep your hate?
What in heaven’s sake are you talking about?
Have you become a Trump supporter, Voice?
I had the the same experience, no one saying anything of the sort.
Also, I am under 55, and I’ll be damned if they cut our Social Security, Medicare and other programs. Fuck this Eeyore shit.
Certainly among the cohort making less than $30k. That’s just disastrous according to Fladem’s figures if I am reading correctly.
Obama was more able to more effectively transcend race, gender, social class, and creed. He didn’t sneer at white bigots that were unable to accept him because in his heart he knew they weren’t all that much different from his beloved grandmother. In his person that gave him a degree authenticity and authenticity is a component of charisma.
Counterpunch – John Steppling The Big Split Some worthy stuff in it.
Disagree on that last sentence. The only thing that happened in the last month is the same thing that happens in the last month of every presidential election. Voters take one more, or their first look, at the two candidates and go with whichever way they leaned before the election or get confirmation of doubts they’ve had all along with their lean and opt out. A few may switch right before voting but doubt that swings election results to any discernible extent.
Steppling gets more on target again with:
Celebrities are also elites and that was more on public display in support of Hillary in the last month than any other few weeks during the election. Half or more naked female celebrities shaking their booties on public stages were telling Americans that Trump was a crude boor?
Trump single-handedly accomplished what GOP voters and elites couldn’t do which was finish off the Bush dynasty and what Dem voters and elites never wanted, an end to the Clinton era. Should have been a less costly path for those two needed correctives.
Well, let’s bury them both at sea.
I think the Dem establishment has been so isolated so long that they wouldn’t recognize the problems in the fly over country. The article points out that issue.
Those folks need to get out more.
Fire them all and start listening to/ using the state chairs and their field workers.
R
I wonder what kind of straits the state parties that entertained the Hillary Victory Fund are in?
Wonder if they can get a refund?
Or perhaps Howard Dean can use them if anything is left. He is already saying is running for DNC chair.
R
Fair warned but found that article quite deplorable in places.
And I know what parts you would find “deplorable.” More meh or not on point for me, but not at all deplorable. Now can we junk that word for a while, considering that its use may have helped Trump win?
Hell no, I’m keeping it. Lest we forget.
I’d say in predominantly white regions ppl tuned out the racist aspects of T for his populist message; in some places, E Coast for example, that’s considered the salient feature.
I’d say in predominantly white regions ppl tuned out the racist aspects of T for his populist message …
That’s probably correct. They may not be more than 3% of the electorate, but they were able to look beyond Obama’s skin color and vote for him. And if we look back further, they would also be those that in the end responded more favorably to Gore’s soft-peddled populism.
This.
Race wasn’t enough of a reason to vote against Obama, racism wasn’t enough of a reason to vote against Trump.
yes, that is what I saw. I travel a lot for work and talked with many ppl over the past two years. Also, worked on GOTV in Berlin NH in 08. ppl talked about how much they wanted to get rid of Bush.
Just keep on coming:
Just like those jobs.
“Voters from West Virginia were never coming back to his party”
There are 186,397 West Virginia voters who would be very surprised to hear that.
That’s what being “written off” looks like.
It sure seems like Mark Penn v. 2.0
The aides and strategists have no experience with the middle of the country. The miners in WV, dirt poor in Ark. Suburban raised college educated or members of urban poor who worked their way out, yes; steeped in urban ethic and attitude, sure. Tech park workers? Probably.
But a factory worker in Missouri? I doubt it. And they were so sure that the rest (or the most important parts) of the country reflected what they lived.
Bill knew differently and tried to tell them.
Next candidate had better have a wider range of campaign workers.
R
I hearby coin a term: the winnables.
Definition: those lower income white voters who voted for Obama but did not vote for Clinton.
Might be a good idea to find out why they defected by, like, listening to them.
NAH, lets pretend anti-trust will fix everything.
Racism is the default background for many other issues in America — education, crime and punishment, provision of heathcare services, budget issues, transportation, to name a few.
What would make a difference is that in 2012 with a black President race or gender was not salient to those voters who switched but it was in 2016.
Or more likely, you are looking at two fundamentally different populations of voters. Likely voters in 2012 are not the same bunch as likely voters in 2016.
What is striking this year is the drop in turnout. Even accounting for voter suppression.
Maybe they didn’t switch. Maybe that represents voters who were added to the likely voter pool in place of those who sat it out.
Pretending that racism, xenophobia, and misogyny was not part of the factors ignores much of Trump’s rhetoric to rile people up.
In FL at least, there were a lot of unlikely rural voters putting in early votes and mail ballots. Those at least were probably not people who voted for Obama.
And how large was the felons purge this year in FL?
That explanation doesn’t cut it.
One in four low income voters who voted for Obama did not vote for Clinton.
If they are racist, it didn’t stop them from voting for the black guy.
Maybe there was some turnover – but 95% of people who voted in ’12 voted in ’16.
I am not pretending anything.
I asking why voters switched.
The answer: WE DON”T KNOW.
Had you seen this?
Second, a mere seven states gave Clinton a wide lead of 7 million plus votes. Without those seven states Trump took the rest of the country, 43 states, by 7 million votes.
That’s a misleading use of the numbers. Hillary carried twenty states.
Trump got a lot more “white” votes in IN and KY than Mitt did. So what? He didn’t need any of those additional votes in IN and KY. He also received fewer votes than Mitt in many “red states.” AK, AZ, MS, and UT, but it would have taken a boatload of fewer votes in them to flip.
I think this is largely the rural poor showing up for or switching to Trump. (To some extent it’s minority poor being successfully suppressed.) Racism and economic distress are not mutually exclusive – that’s a pretty racist group, but it’s also a pretty needy group as well. Hillary proposed things to help them, but the media never mentioned them, while Trump’s promise to MAGA – meaning they’d have jobs like their parents did – was on the evening news every night. Along with a promise to stick it to minorities.
So basically before they were willing to put up with a ** president to eat but now they were being offered a life AND the change to see the ****s get it. So they went for Trump. Yeah, his promises are bogus but these are not people able to analyze worldwide manufacturing employment trends. Even if they had the inclination and skills, they wouldn’t have the time.
Suppression and intimidation is much easier to carry out in rural counties — as is fabricating vote totals.
are you seeing some of that in specific instances?
Who or what are you going to blame if the still to be counted ballots in MI don’t flip the state to Clinton? If MI holds for Trump, he wouldn’t even have needed FL.
I read somewhere that she only sent surrogates to MI during the general. IF so, that is malpractice.