Are all Trump supporters racists?

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Platitudes. Ignorant platitudes. If the problem is Democratic Party administrations, how do you explain how poorly rural Southern blacks are doing under Republican administrations? Cities do not control their own destinies. They have to, in many cases, deal with state legislatures that are GOP controlled and with a Congress that is hell-bent on cutting budgets of all social programs.

At least the GOP are equal opportunity screwers, I guess. They screw the white poor along with the black. The difference seeming to be that the white poor bend over and say, "Thank you sir. May I have another?"

Pick a city that has been long term run by Republicans, any city you choose, and let's compare it with a long term Democrat run city like Detroit. Game?
Chris B.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

Pick a city that has been long term run by Republicans, any city you choose, and let's compare it with a long term Democrat run city like Detroit. Game?
Chris B.

I remember reading a while back a comparison of Muskogee, OK and Philadelphia. It was at the time when the riots were going on in Philadelphia, and the general portrayal was how Philadelphia was a complete failure.

When compared to Muskogee, it was a bloody paradise.

I have tried to find it but failed, unfortunately.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

the general portrayal was how Philadelphia was a complete failure.

Apropos of nothing except it's funny:
https://twitter.com/nihilist_arbys/s...43750576599040

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

I remember reading a while back a comparison of Muskogee, OK and Philadelphia. It was at the time when the riots were going on in Philadelphia, and the general portrayal was how Philadelphia was a complete failure.

When compared to Muskogee, it was a bloody paradise.

I have tried to find it but failed, unfortunately.

Compared by what criterion?

Right off the bat, the cost of living is 30% higher in Philly....

[WilliamSeger]

I can only speak from my own personal experience, but I know of some Trump supporters in my extended family who are indeed racists, but also several more and couple of friends who are not themselves racists (I don't think), but I think they have become so accustomed to being surrounded by it that it doesn't bother them. When they hear a racist remark (and they do), they sort of treat it like the guy who gets drunk and obnoxious at parties: hey, other than that, he's a good guy. Anyway, racism obviously wasn't a deal-breaker for them, but then, it doesn't affect them.

[blutoski]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Wait now Trump is a victim of Trumps sexual misconduct? We have his own words that he sexually assaults women and barges in on the changing rooms of teenagers.

I know Trump is not the most reliable of informers on the actions of himself but he should still be counted in those accusing him of doing these things.

Yes that particular discussion confused me.

Trump's situation is not "she said he did versus he said he didn't"

It's "she said and he boasted about it" - what's to discuss?

[blutoski]

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

I can only speak from my own personal experience, but I know of some Trump supporters in my extended family who are indeed racists, but also several more and couple of friends who are not themselves racists (I don't think), but I think they have become so accustomed to being surrounded by it that it doesn't bother them. When they hear a racist remark (and they do), they sort of treat it like the guy who gets drunk and obnoxious at parties: hey, other than that, he's a good guy. Anyway, racism obviously wasn't a deal-breaker for them, but then, it doesn't affect them.

Yep. This is why black people feel especially hurt.

The nation threw them under the bus because of... I'm trying to get this straight... hurt feelings about being insulted by New Yorkers?

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by blutoski

Yep. This is why black people feel especially hurt.

The nation threw them under the bus because of... I'm trying to get this straight... hurt feelings about being insulted by New Yorkers?

To b e fair, there was also the "I'll protect jobs" angle. I read a piece about a West Virginian who voted for Trump because "He'll bring back coal mining!" He wont, but I can understand why someone would want that to happen - and while Clinton had the better plan, she completely failed to send anyone there to actually sell it.

Also, I wouldn't say I'm all that hurt - white supremacy has always been popular in the US, and I was expecting a backlash (or a "whitelash" as Van Jones put it) from the moment Obama was elected. But if Trump actually starts trying to implement the blatantly racist policies he spoke of while campaigning, I'll have to reevaluate my "I'm no activist" view of things.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

I can only speak from my own personal experience, but I know of some Trump supporters in my extended family who are indeed racists, but also several more and couple of friends who are not themselves racists (I don't think), but I think they have become so accustomed to being surrounded by it that it doesn't bother them. When they hear a racist remark (and they do), they sort of treat it like the guy who gets drunk and obnoxious at parties: hey, other than that, he's a good guy. Anyway, racism obviously wasn't a deal-breaker for them, but then, it doesn't affect them.

Sort of the modern equivalent of bystanders at a lynching.

Not participants. Merely observers who remain silent at all costs.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by Mumbles

To b e fair, there was also the "I'll protect jobs" angle. I read a piece about a West Virginian who voted for Trump because "He'll bring back coal mining!" He wont, but I can understand why someone would want that to happen -

This is especially problematic because coal mining in West Virginia hasn't gone anywhere. It's alive and thriving. WV is the second highest coal producing state in the country.

The problem is that "mining" these days more than anything else involves pushing the tops off of mountains down into the valleys, and scooping the coal up. It doesn't take anywhere nearly as many people to run backhoes and loaders as it does to crawl around in tunnels.

Those jobs aren't coming back.

Quote:

and while Clinton had the better plan, she completely failed to send anyone there to actually sell it.

<snip>

That wasn't exactly the problem.

I've talked to my dad about this during the whole duration of the campaign. He's living in WV right now, and as a retired professor who was in WVU's Geology/Geography Dept. he has a better than average grasp of the conditions there relating to mining.

He tells me that Clinton's pledge of helping to find alternatives to the coal industry's inevitable decline (it's gonna run out someday.) was morphed into "Hillary's gonna stop all coal mining." (Kind of like how she's gonna take everyone's guns away.) It wouldn't have mattered how many Clinton people went to the state. The lie was too well established, and had been for quite a while.

Oddly enough, if presented with the things she actually said, most miners in the state would agree with her.

They all know the writing is on the wall. They just want to keep the status quo until well past the last minute.

IOW ... conservatives.

[willim]

Things are not always as they seem to be.

Some people I know IRL, and many people here, have a preconceived notion, a narrative if you will, about the label "racist", and to whom it applies to. If you voted for Trump, you're a racist, and there will be NO discussion. That Is What You Are, even if you are not. It makes no difference if the person in question is even a member of a racial/cultural minority. It does not matter that I and others in my circle of friends are non-white.

What is missing in this lopsided discussion, is the fact that as obnoxious as Trump can be, there is no current real example that proves the man to be a racist. I know hypersensitive people will absolutely claim that he is, but in my opinion their emotions and blind hatred have made their claims both wrong, and irrelevant. Not everyone subscribes to needless hysteria and baseless assertions when things suddenly don't go their way.

Here's a newsflash- There are people of many different races and ethnic backgrounds in this country who don't take every perceived slight or insult from Trump (or most anyone else) as proof of "racism". In fact, there are people in our country who don't get that worked up over so-called insults both real, or perceived, at all.

Unfounded accusations of racism are a tactic of the defeated who cannot face reality. Keep beating that false and empty drum, and when real racism rears it's ugly head, fewer people, if any, will care. One can only cry wolf so many times.

We do not yet know what sort of POTUS Trump will really turn out to be. However, in the end I suppose it really doesn't matter in this particular backwater, because the people here who hate Trump as well as those who decided to vote for him, will hate us all no matter what he says or does be it right, or wrong.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

This is especially problematic because coal mining in West Virginia hasn't gone anywhere. It's alive and thriving. WV is the second highest coal producing state in the country.

The problem is that "mining" these days more than anything else involves pushing the tops off of mountains down into the valleys, and scooping the coal up. It doesn't take anywhere nearly as many people to run backhoes and loaders as it does to crawl around in tunnels.

Those jobs aren't coming back.

Well, yes, that's what the man in the article was talking about - and I agree (not that it's a matter of opinion) that the coal mining jobs are gone for good.

Quote:

He tells me that Clinton's pledge of helping to find alternatives to the coal industry's inevitable decline (it's gonna run out someday.) was morphed into "Hillary's gonna stop all coal mining." (Kind of like how she's gonna take everyone's guns away.) It wouldn't have mattered how many Clinton people went to the state. The lie was too well established, and had been for quite a while.

Oddly enough, if presented with the things she actually said, most miners in the state would agree with her.

They all know the writing is on the wall. They just want to keep the status quo until well past the last minute.

IOW ... conservatives.

Thank you for this. I tend to be relatively hopeful, although not nearly so hopeful that I'll completely refuse to see what's plainly obvious. And this is one area where I'm critical of democrats overall - it's clear that they have the far better plan to bring jobs to the Appalachians, and that many of the republican congressmen have been blocking these proposals. That's a message worth bringing to the people to live there, yet I've seen little effort to do so.

However, I'm just outside of Baltimore, so it's possible that I'm not seeing these efforts because I'm simply not there. THe opinion of someone who lives there, like your father, will naturally be more informed than I am.

[JoeMorgue]

Pushing the multitude of side topics to the back burner for a moment I find general line of thought an odd one.

Politics is the one area of life where a group of people holding a vile opinion or being factually wrong sorta has to be counter with a "Yeah so?" to some degree.

Even if every single last Trump voter was 100% across the board racist and factually wrong about every relevant political and social stance that influenced their vote... so? The Democrats still have to find a way to reach them and win their votes or all their moral high ground is gonna do is provide them a better view of their opponents victory parties.

In politics you can't act as if a certain demographics votes are just beneath you and get all shocked and huffy that when that demographic tips an election against you.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

In politics you can't act as if a certain demographics votes are just beneath you and get all shocked and huffy that when that demographic tips an election against you.

It's a bit tricky appealing to racist demographic without being racist.

It's also difficult when your opponents blatantly lie and tell the electorate what they want to hear rather than the truth...

The Democrats lost a slice of the blue collar demographic by telling the truth - those coal mining jobs are gone, here's a plan and money for retraining. Trump lied and said he'd get those coal mining jobs back. Without lying, I'm not sure what the Democratic Party should have done.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by The Don

It's a bit tricky appealing to racist demographic without being racist.

It's also difficult when your opponents blatantly lie and tell the electorate what they want to hear rather than the truth...

The Democrats lost a slice of the blue collar demographic by telling the truth - those coal mining jobs are gone, here's a plan and money for retraining. Trump lied and said he'd get those coal mining jobs back. Without lying, I'm not sure what the Democratic Party should have done.

The point is that there are people who stayed home or voted for Trump, because Hillary really took them for granted, but who are not racist (and I'm not taking the claim that there's "no evidence' that Trump campaigned on white supremacy seriously). I've said this in previous elections about why black voters refuse to consider republicans - and have praised Rand Paul for actually going to black people and discussing issues with them, which many republicans simply refuse to do.

Yes, you can't deal with Alex Jones nuts, or the white nationalists of the so-called "alt right". You don't need to deal with them to win elections.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by willim

What is missing in this lopsided discussion, is the fact that as obnoxious as Trump can be, there is no current real example that proves the man to be a racist.

"Prove" is too strong a word to use when discussing fuzzy topics such as this. That said, the evidence of Trump's racism is extensive and well documented.

Quote:

I know hypersensitive people will absolutely claim that he is, but in my opinion their emotions and blind hatred have made their claims both wrong, and irrelevant. Not everyone subscribes to needless hysteria and b
all no matter what he says or does be it right, or wrong.

Certainly there exists people blinded by hatred. Notwithstanding, what a steaming load of fact-challenged bs, as if the documented body of evidence of Trump's racism doesn't exist.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by The Don

It's a bit tricky appealing to racist demographic without being racist.

Basically the Democrats narrative for this election quickly got turned into "I don't understand why all these people I'm calling deplorable racist bigots didn't vote for me."

And again this is all a separate discussion from whether or not the statistically significant (I won't use phrases like "all" or "none" because that does nothing but invite pointless nitpicking exception worshipping) portion of Trump supporters were racist because again it doesn't change anything on a political level.

We have two possible scenarios:

1. The statistical majority of Trump supporters were racists and the Democrats either wouldn't stoop to or didn't know how to pander to that base.

Or

2. The statistical majority of Trump were not racist and the Democrats either painted them all as racists or allowed themselves to be seen as painting them all as racists.

Either way way the end results are the same, the Democrats didn't get those votes.

That's what I meant when I said the in politics you can't simultaneously act as if a certain demographics votes are beneath you and still need them to win and that is exactly what the Democrats did in this election either directly themselves or in not being politically savvy enough to counter the narrative the Republicans were pushing depending on your POV.

Quote:

It's also difficult when your opponents blatantly lie and tell the electorate what they want to hear rather than the truth...

All politics ever of all time would like to have a word with you.

Quote:

The Democrats lost a slice of the blue collar demographic by telling the truth - those coal mining jobs are gone, here's a plan and money for retraining.

The Democrats plan for replacing the Rust Belt/Farm Belt jobs was pie in the sky nonsense and everyone knew it. You can't replace farming and factory jobs with service and tech jobs. Service and tech jobs need a certain population density to work. A dying 300 person town in the shadow of the steel mill or textile plant that was once it's lifeblood can't sustain an economy on Starbucks barista jobs and web page designers and the way a big city can.

There is no plan on the table, anyone's table, to replace the rural American job market and despite the Left's continued insistence that everyone who doesn't live within walking distance of 2 Starbucks and a vinyl record store is nothing but a inbreed racist Hick making meth and sleeping with his sister they rural population knows it.

They went with Trump because he told them a better story. One where they were still screwed but at least it's not their fault and hey here's someone to blame.

You can explain to anyone you want chapter and verse in excruciating detail how wrong Trump story is but at the end of the day the voters swallowed it and that's why he's President and Hillary isn't.

And as far as "Telling the Truth" that's bull. They didn't say anything. Hillary aggressively ignored the Rust Belt states, not running so much as a single Ad or hosting a single event or even stepping foot into several of them assuming she had them in the bad. A few stumps speeches and photo ops in front of a John Deere could have easily tipped the election for her. But no their entire campaign was "Point and laugh at the racist country folk."

I've used this metaphor before and I think it works. In the Dark Knight returns Batman decides to ignore the Joker in order to go after the Mob which leads to this exchange.

Batman: "I don't understand Alfred. This is different. They crossed a line."
Alfred: "No sir you crossed the line. You hammered to the point of desperation and in their desperation they turned to a man they didn't fully understand."

Quote:

Trump lied and said he'd get those coal mining jobs back. Without lying, I'm not sure what the Democratic Party should have done.

Oh jeesus... it's politics. YES LIE TO THEM. Or at least pander. It's what politicians do.

Or again the Democrats can build up their moral high ground higher and higher to give them better views of the Republican victory parties going on down in the gutter.

[sunmaster14]

Originally Posted by The Don

It's a bit tricky appealing to racist demographic without being racist.

It's also difficult when your opponents blatantly lie and tell the electorate what they want to hear rather than the truth...

The Democrats lost a slice of the blue collar demographic by telling the truth - those coal mining jobs are gone, here's a plan and money for retraining. Trump lied and said he'd get those coal mining jobs back. Without lying, I'm not sure what the Democratic Party should have done.

Why is that a lie? It is quite easy for those coal mining jobs to come back if regulations governing the burning of coal were loosened. The US is the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have enough coal to meet all of the world's energy needs for a thousand years (at current rates of energy usage). Coal is still less expensive per unit of energy content than any other fossil fuel.

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by sunmaster14

Why is that a lie? It is quite easy for those coal mining jobs to come back if regulations governing the burning of coal were loosened. The US is the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have enough coal to meet all of the world's energy needs for a thousand years (at current rates of energy usage). Coal is still less expensive per unit of energy content than any other fossil fuel.

Coal is not processed the same way any more.

[sunmaster14]

Originally Posted by LSSBB

Coal is not processed the same way any more.

Can you explain a bit more?

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by sunmaster14

Can you explain a bit more?

Technology allows the companies to just remove the entire mountaintop, get to the coal with far fewer people, for less money - especially since all of the coal deposits that are easy for human miners to get to have been mined already. There's absolutely no reason for them to employ miners the same way that they used to.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

Basically the Democrats narrative for this election quickly got turned into "I don't understand why all these people I'm calling deplorable racist bigots didn't vote for me."

Of course, when Hillary called people "deplorable", she was

a) talking about people who already supported Trump

b) only discussing *half* of his voters, and

c) absolutely correct, according to polling data.

Quote:

The Democrats plan for replacing the Rust Belt/Farm Belt jobs was pie in the sky nonsense and everyone knew it. You can't replace farming and factory jobs with service and tech jobs. Service and tech jobs need a certain population density to work. A dying 300 person town in the shadow of the steel mill or textile plant that was once it's lifeblood can't sustain an economy on Starbucks barista jobs and web page designers and the way a big city can.

Actually, "web designer" seems like the sort of small business that could be done from anywhere, with adequate infrastructure (which was also something that democrats have pushed). As such, it'd make a pretty good job for that small town.

Quote:

There is no plan on the table, anyone's table, to replace the rural American job market and despite the Left's continued insistence that everyone who doesn't live within walking distance of 2 Starbucks and a vinyl record store is nothing but a inbreed racist Hick making meth and sleeping with his sister they rural population knows it.

Problem is, none of the major candidates were saying that. Yes, there are bigots in cities who look down on people in small towns, but it's always been clear that the feeling was mutual. The only presidential-level candidates I've seen sneer at people due to where they live, in fact, have been republican (Palin's "real America", GWB's "liberal Massachusetts")

Quote:

They went with Trump because he told them a better story. One where they were still screwed but at least it's not their fault and hey here's someone to blame.

And that's part of the problem - so long as many of the groups they "blame" include black Americans, immigrants, and muslims, none of whom have done anything to them, they are in fact bigots. Thus, we get to Trump's brazen bigotry against, and promises of state oppression of, these groups.

It's quite natural that he attracted a large number of open bigots, and that people who voted against him are strongly suspected of, at the very least, tolerating such garbage.

Quote:

You can explain to anyone you want chapter and verse in excruciating detail how wrong Trump story is but at the end of the day the voters swallowed it and that's why he's President and Hillary isn't.

Well, not quite, since Hillary received more votes than Trump. But certainly, there were people who bought Trump's BS.

Quote:

And as far as "Telling the Truth" that's bull. They didn't say anything. Hillary aggressively ignored the Rust Belt states, not running so much as a single Ad or hosting a single event or even stepping foot into several of them assuming she had them in the bad. A few stumps speeches and photo ops in front of a John Deere could have easily tipped the election for her. But no their entire campaign was "Point and laugh at the racist country folk."

I agree that she didn't run in all 50 states, certainly. Buty the idea that she simply called everyone in the "rust belt" racist and ignorant is also nonsense.

[sunmaster14]

Originally Posted by Mumbles

Technology allows the companies to just remove the entire mountaintop, get to the coal with far fewer people, for less money - especially since all of the coal deposits that are easy for human miners to get to have been mined already. There's absolutely no reason for them to employ miners the same way that they used to.

The development of that technology (which is actually not new at all - it has been employed since the 1970s) does not explain why the use of coal to generate electricity in the US has dropped from 50% to 33% in just the last 15 years. In fact, one would normally expect a more efficient coal extraction technology to increase coal's share in electricity generation.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

Basically the Democrats narrative for this election quickly got turned into "I don't understand why all these people I'm calling deplorable racist bigots didn't vote for me."

Do you really think that they would have voted for a different party? From what I see, the problen wasn't converting people on the other side, but convincing people on yours to vote. This idea that calling the other side deplorable is what convinced them not to switch sides is nonsense.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by sunmaster14

The development of that technology (which is actually not new at all - it has been employed since the 1970s) does not explain why the use of coal to generate electricity in the US has dropped from 50% to 33% in just the last 15 years. In fact, one would normally expect a more efficient coal extraction technology to increase coal's share in electricity generation.

West Virginia isn't producing less coal. It's the #2 highest producing coal state in the country. How that coal is getting used doesn't change that.

It's producing the same amount (or more) with less people.

Those jobs aren't coming back.

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by sunmaster14

The development of that technology (which is actually not new at all - it has been employed since the 1970s) does not explain why the use of coal to generate electricity in the US has dropped from 50% to 33% in just the last 15 years. In fact, one would normally expect a more efficient coal extraction technology to increase coal's share in electricity generation.

Has the actual amount of coal produced dropped, or the percentage against alternatives?

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Mumbles

Of course, when Hillary called people "deplorable", she was

a) talking about people who already supported Trump

b) only discussing *half* of his voters, and

c) absolutely correct, according to polling data.

And you think that's how that statement and others like it as well as the general tone came across to the populace?

Quote:

Actually, "web designer" seems like the sort of small business that could be done from anywhere, with adequate infrastructure (which was also something that democrats have pushed). As such, it'd make a pretty good job for that small town.

That's not the point. Rural America hasn't lost jobs it's lost industries and you can't replace industries with individual jobs, at least not easily and directly.

And I'd still argue that if you expect the 55 year old blue collar worker who ran station #4 on the Canyanero assembly line for 30 years to start over again being a web designer competing with fresh out of college kids living in the city... that's probably not realistic.

Yeah we could replace the manufacturing and other "Rust Belt / Farm Belt / Rural" jobs with remote tech jobs but A) there's absolutely no chance there is enough of those to go around, B) if you businessman you might as well just move those jobs overseas and C) there's zero push to do that. All the economic recovery efforts have been focused on the cities. No one's even trying replace the rural jobs. There's a lot of "We could do this" going around, not much else.

Quote:

And that's part of the problem - so long as many of the groups they "blame" include black Americans, immigrants, and muslims, none of whom have done anything to them, they are in fact bigots. Thus, we get to Trump's brazen bigotry against, and promises of state oppression of, these groups.

And again that's a nice moral high ground to stand on while you lose.

And I don't buy it. The country hasn't changed that much in the last 4 years. You telling me all these bigots and racists that refused to elect Hillary Clinton elected Barack Obama?

If it really is just racism and bigotry what changed? How does the rich white lady from the established Southern political family somehow garner less of the "racist bigot" vote then the actual black guy if that is the major factor?

And here's the thing. The numbers here don't just add up. Every demographic that the assumption was they were going to be Anti-Trump was up from the last election. If McCain and Romney couldn't win just on the backs of the bigoted straight white men there's no way Trump could.

And again the number back that up. Trump surely lost the vote among all these demographics... but not in the numbers this narrative would suggest. He got 33% of the Latino vote and 13% of the Black Male vote. He got 14% of the LGBT vote. He got 42% of the female vote! Those are numbers are small but they aren't the total curb stompings needed to fit the narrative of "Racists, bigoted, sexist, homophobic sexual assaulter" being the biggest factor in people voting. Either a statistically small but significant percentage of women, blacks, homosexual, etc have higher priorities then how their individual demographics are treated or there is some other X factor in here.

If 42% of women voted for Trump, I have a hard time with the narrative that the 53% of men who did have to be "Okay with sexism."

The numbers on the other groups are smaller but still significant. Think about if you know 10 gay people, statistically 1 or 2 of them voted for Trump. That changes the landscape at least a bit doesn't it?

Is it possible that the Dems were counting on the non-white, non-male, non-straight, non-Christian demographics just a little more then they should have been?

Quote:

It's quite natural that he attracted a large number of open bigots, and that people who voted against him are strongly suspected of, at the very least, tolerating such garbage.

See above.

And again we're back in the loop. If there really are that many bigots (or those tolerant of bigotry or whatever) and you're just too good to go after those votes... have fun losing.

I don't think it's that simple, but if that's the narrative you want to go with, that's the ending your story kind of has to have.

Quote:

Well, not quite, since Hillary received more votes than Trump. But certainly, there were people who bought Trump's BS.

Hillary was courting and counting electoral votes and ignoring the popular vote same as Trump. She was playing the same game she just lost it.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Do you really think that they would have voted for a different party? From what I see, the problen wasn't converting people on the other side, but convincing people on yours to vote. This idea that calling the other side deplorable is what convinced them not to switch sides is nonsense.

"Nothing would make them vote for me anyway" isn't a good attitude to have in politics. And if it's true your loss is guaranteed so there's no point in trying.

I also don't think it's true.

[WilliamSeger]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

If 42% of women voted for Trump, I have a hard time with the narrative that the 53% of men who did have to be "Okay with sexism."

I think the role sexism played was in the number of people who were simply unwilling to vote for a female president, and that includes some females who are comfortable with sexist stereotypes. (I'm not just speculating about that; I have a cousin who explicitly says she doesn't want a woman president.) Conservatives in particular want an authoritarian "father figure" to lead them.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

I think the role sexism played was in the number of people who were simply unwilling to vote for a female president, and that includes some females who are comfortable with sexist stereotypes. (I'm not just speculating about that; I have a cousin who explicitly says she doesn't want a woman president.) Conservatives in particular want an authoritarian "father figure" to lead them.

Very possible.

But again we're keep coming back to the big rub that if Democrats can't find a way to connect with these people they aren't going to get gains on the Midterm elections and 2020 is going to be a hard battle for them.

[WilliamSeger]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

Very possible.

But again we're keep coming back to the big rub that if Democrats can't find a way to connect with these people they aren't going to get gains on the Midterm elections and 2020 is going to be a hard battle for them.

Assuming the whole shebang doesn't crater before then, I think the midterms will be a rout if Trump continues his current downward mental-health trajectory while Republicans in Congress ignore the issue-specific polling and carry out their extremely damaging and unpopular agenda. (I also think that both of those things are near certainty.)

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

Assuming the whole shebang doesn't crater before then, I think the midterms will be a rout if Trump continues his current downward mental-health trajectory while Republicans in Congress ignore the issue-specific polling and carry out their extremely damaging and unpopular agenda. (I also think that both of those things are near certainty.)

What downward trajectory? What damaging and unpopular agenda?

You mean the ones that got him elected?

Again I feel the need to clarify that I'm talking politically not how I personally feel (for the record I didn't vote for him, can't stand him, and don't think he's going to make a horrible President so much as I think he's literally not going to be able to function in the role.) but the Left has been going "Trump's going to do something so crazy people will have to stop supporting him any day now. Yep any day now." for a little too long now.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by sunmaster14

The development of that technology (which is actually not new at all - it has been employed since the 1970s) does not explain why the use of coal to generate electricity in the US has dropped from 50% to 33% in just the last 15 years. In fact, one would normally expect a more efficient coal extraction technology to increase coal's share in electricity generation.

Even if that occurred as one expected it to, one would still not necessarily see more jobs in coal mining.

OT anyway.

[WilliamSeger]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

What downward trajectory? What damaging and unpopular agenda?

You mean the ones that got him elected?

LOL, Trump is already thumbing his nose at the people who believed his campaign promises; but no, I mean the actual agenda of the Republican Congress, which is not the same thing. (Some Trump supporters may be surprised that Congress passes laws, since it isn't clear that Trump knows that.)

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

Again I feel the need to clarify that I'm talking politically not how I personally feel (for the record I didn't vote for him, can't stand him, and don't think he's going to make a horrible President so much as I think he's literally not going to be able to function in the role.) but the Left has been going "Trump's going to do something so crazy people will have to stop supporting him any day now. Yep any day now." for a little too long now.

Wanna bet?

Speaking of which, I just checked one of the European bookmaking sites that has the "Trump impeachment or resignation" betting line at "Yes +250". (Win $250 on a $100 bet, so "No" is the favorite, but for comparison Obama was "Yes +1200".)

ETA re: "...and don't think he's going to make a horrible President so much as I think he's literally not going to be able to function in the role." I don't know what distinction you are trying to make there.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by sunmaster14

The development of that technology (which is actually not new at all - it has been employed since the 1970s) does not explain why the use of coal to generate electricity in the US has dropped from 50% to 33% in just the last 15 years. In fact, one would normally expect a more efficient coal extraction technology to increase coal's share in electricity generation.

You would, but fracking has made gas so cheap that burning coal is economically less attractive - not least because gas-fired power stations are intrinsically more efficient than coal-fired ones. In places like Texas, solar and wind are also financially attractive.

Here's a short Time article on the subject of coal jobs

http://time.com/4570070/donald-trump-coal-jobs/

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by blutoski

Yes that particular discussion confused me.

Trump's situation is not "she said he did versus he said he didn't"

It's "she said and he boasted about it" - what's to discuss?

I think the idea from Trumps supporters is that he is not a valid witness against himself because of his compulsive lying.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by The Don

It's a bit tricky appealing to racist demographic without being racist.

It's also difficult when your opponents blatantly lie and tell the electorate what they want to hear rather than the truth...

The Democrats lost a slice of the blue collar demographic by telling the truth - those coal mining jobs are gone, here's a plan and money for retraining. Trump lied and said he'd get those coal mining jobs back. Without lying, I'm not sure what the Democratic Party should have done.

That is the thing. It is kind of like the criticism I see of there not being enough white men up and coming in the democratic party and this will cost them more rural votes. It takes simply assumes how damn racist they are. It is the weirdness of the whole thing that the people saying that the democrats are to patronizing of middle america are so incredibly patronizing of it.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

Basically the Democrats narrative for this election quickly got turned into "I don't understand why all these people I'm calling deplorable racist bigots didn't vote for me."

And again this is all a separate discussion from whether or not the statistically significant (I won't use phrases like "all" or "none" because that does nothing but invite pointless nitpicking exception worshipping) portion of Trump supporters were racist because again it doesn't change anything on a political level.

We have two possible scenarios:

1. The statistical majority of Trump supporters were racists and the Democrats either wouldn't stoop to or didn't know how to pander to that base.

Or

2. The statistical majority of Trump were not racist and the Democrats either painted them all as racists or allowed themselves to be seen as painting them all as racists.

Either way way the end results are the same, the Democrats didn't get those votes.

That's what I meant when I said the in politics you can't simultaneously act as if a certain demographics votes are beneath you and still need them to win and that is exactly what the Democrats did in this election either directly themselves or in not being politically savvy enough to counter the narrative the Republicans were pushing depending on your POV.




All politics ever of all time would like to have a word with you.



The Democrats plan for replacing the Rust Belt/Farm Belt jobs was pie in the sky nonsense and everyone knew it. You can't replace farming and factory jobs with service and tech jobs. Service and tech jobs need a certain population density to work. A dying 300 person town in the shadow of the steel mill or textile plant that was once it's lifeblood can't sustain an economy on Starbucks barista jobs and web page designers and the way a big city can.

Why do we need to save economically non viable communities? Why can't we move people to where there are jobs?

The whole argument is that these people are too damn stupid to understand the truth, but that isn't somehow insulting to them. I really don't understand that.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by LSSBB

Has the actual amount of coal produced dropped, or the percentage against alternatives?

We just need to bring back the black snow of my fathers youth. But all this fancy environmental legislation has convinced people snow should be white.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

"Nothing would make them vote for me anyway" isn't a good attitude to have in politics. And if it's true your loss is guaranteed so there's no point in trying.

I also don't think it's true.

In a normal world, I'd agree with you. But the world is getting VERY polarised and partisan. I don't think you'll find a lot of compromise on either side anymore.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

And you think that's how that statement and others like it as well as the general tone came across to the populace?

That's not really my concern, since I had no input into her campaign. But when you throw a rock into a kennel, the dog that hollers...

Quote:

That's not the point. Rural America hasn't lost jobs it's lost industries and you can't replace industries with individual jobs, at least not easily and directly.

No kidding - but that's no excuse for the individual workers to simply give up. You want a job, go get one - or make one.

Quote:

And I'd still argue that if you expect the 55 year old blue collar worker who ran station #4 on the Canyanero assembly line for 30 years to start over again being a web designer competing with fresh out of college kids living in the city... that's probably not realistic.

IT's simply one option, not "the only" option.

Quote:

Yeah we could replace the manufacturing and other "Rust Belt / Farm Belt / Rural" jobs with remote tech jobs but A) there's absolutely no chance there is enough of those to go around, B) if you businessman you might as well just move those jobs overseas and C) there's zero push to do that. All the economic recovery efforts have been focused on the cities. No one's even trying replace the rural jobs. There's a lot of "We could do this" going around, not much else.

I didn't say anything about working for someone else's company. It's not easy to move to another area for a job (I've done it), or to build up a business (I'm hoping to do this soon), but you won't get anywhere just sitting there waiting for someone to toss work your way.

Quote:

And again that's a nice moral high ground to stand on while you lose.

And I don't buy it. The country hasn't changed that much in the last 4 years. You telling me all these bigots and racists that refused to elect Hillary Clinton elected Barack Obama?

First, who says that the bigots voted for Obama? Remember, Obama *lost* the white vote.

Second, yet again, nobody buys "some of my best friends are black" as a way to handwave claims of racism away. If you voted for Trump, a lot of people will be, at the least, suspicious of you. Plenty of people said that they voted for Obama, but got angry because he was sympathetic to black people who were attacked or killed by police (or George Zimmerman), or that they were angry because black people continued to point out racism.

Quote:

And here's the thing. The numbers here don't just add up. Every demographic that the assumption was they were going to be Anti-Trump was up from the last election. If McCain and Romney couldn't win just on the backs of the bigoted straight white men there's no way Trump could.

This is very questionable. While exit polls showed that Latino voters favored Trump more than they did Romney, for example, polls that concentrated on Hispanic voters showed that Trump won a mere 16% of their (our) vote. I doubt the numbers for black men for this reason.

Quote:

And again the number back that up. Trump surely lost the vote among all these demographics... but not in If 42% of women voted for Trump, I have a hard time with the narrative that the 53% of men who did have to be "Okay with sexism."

I said pretty early in the thread that not all Trump voters are bigots, and I've maintained that throughout.

However...

What makes you think that some of the women who voted for Trump aren't against having a woman as President?

Quote:

The numbers on the other groups are smaller but still significant. Think about if you know 10 gay people, statistically 1 or 2 of them voted for Trump. That changes the landscape at least a bit doesn't it?

Nope.

Quote:

Is it possible that the Dems were counting on the non-white, non-male, non-straight, non-Christian demographics just a little more then they should have been?

Not really. In truth, given the electoral college, they seem to have depended too much on rural whites - their attitude towards most minorities was, as usual, a full court press, while they often ignored rural white voters entirely. And I've said this many times before.

Quote:

And again we're back in the loop. If there really are that many bigots (or those tolerant of bigotry or whatever) and you're just too good to go after those votes... have fun losing.

I'm not a politician, and am registered as a democrat mostly so I can vote in primaries for congress and local offices - Maryland was way too late to have a say in the presidential candidate this year, and I didn't really care anyway.

Quote:

I don't think it's that simple, but if that's the narrative you want to go with, that's the ending your story kind of has to have.

It really is that simple. For the overwhelming majority of black, Latino/Hispanic, or muslim Americans minorities, this is not a matter of "Oh, maybe he's a party-line voter, or maybe he thinks Trump will bring back his job." it's "Oh, maybe he's two seconds from pulling a gun and shooting me." Trump voters can feel offended if they wish - but it's a consequence of voting for a wildly unqualified man who traffics in bigotry, over a clearly more qualified candidate.