9/16/18, “Biden Trashes Trump: “God Forgive Me” For Not Speaking Up Earlier,” Real Clear Politics, Ian Schwartz
……
“Priorities [USA Democrat super PAC]...studied Obama-to-Trump voters. Estimates of the number of such voters range from 6.7 to 9.2 million, far more than enough to provide Trump his Electoral College victory. The counties that switched from Obama to Trump were heavily concentrated in the Midwest and other Rust Belt states.
To say that this constituency does not look favorably on the Democratic Party fails to capture the scope of their disenchantment….The biggest common denominator among Obama-Trump voters is a view that the political system is corrupt and doesn’t work for people like them.”
*While most Obama to Trump voters once identified as Democrats, a majority now identify as Republicans. Since 2011, there has been a 28 percent decline in Democratic identification and a 43 percent increase in Republican identification among these voters.”…
6/8/2017, “The Democratic Party Is in Worse Shape Than You Thought,” NY Times, Thomas B. Edsall, commentary
“Sifting through the wreckage of the 2016 election, Democratic pollsters, strategists and sympathetic academics have reached some unnerving conclusions.
What
the autopsy reveals is that Democratic losses among working class
voters were not limited to whites; that crucial constituencies within
the party see its leaders as alien; and that unity over economic populism may not be able to turn back the conservative tide.
Equally disturbing, winning back former party loyalists who switched to Trump will be tough: these white voters’ views on immigration and race are in direct conflict with fundamental Democratic tenets.”…
[Ed. note: Millions of white Americans voted for Obama twice before becoming Trump voters. Did they become racist after voting for Obama?]
Equally disturbing, winning back former party loyalists who switched to Trump will be tough: these white voters’ views on immigration and race are in direct conflict with fundamental Democratic tenets.”…
[Ed. note: Millions of white Americans voted for Obama twice before becoming Trump voters. Did they become racist after voting for Obama?]
………………
(continuing): “Some of these post-mortem conclusions are based on polling and focus groups conducted by the Democratic super PAC Priorities USA; others are drawn from a collection of 13 essays published by The American Prospect.
………….
“Priorities [USA Democrat super PAC] also studied Obama-to-Trump voters. Estimates of the number of such voters range from 6.7 to 9.2 million, far more than enough to provide Trump his Electoral College victory. The counties that switched from Obama to Trump were heavily concentrated in the Midwest and other Rust Belt states.
To say that this constituency does not look favorably on the Democratic Party fails to capture the scope of their disenchantment….
A solid majority, 77 percent, of Obama-to-Trump voters think Trump’s economic policies will either favor “all groups equally” (44) or the middle class (33). 21 percent said Trump would favor the wealthy.
A solid majority, 77 percent, of Obama-to-Trump voters think Trump’s economic policies will either favor “all groups equally” (44) or the middle class (33). 21 percent said Trump would favor the wealthy.
In contrast, a plurality of these voters, 42 percent, said that Congressional Democrats would favor the wealthy, slightly ahead of Congressional Republicans at 40 percent.
“The biggest common denominator among Obama-Trump voters is a view that the political system is corrupt and doesn’t work for people like them.”
Garin added that “Obama-Trump voters were more likely to think more Democrats look out for the wealthy than look out for poor people.”…
If the Priorities analysis is bleak, the 13 American Prospect essays are even more so. Stan Greenberg, the Democratic pollster, writes in his Prospect essay:
“The Democrats don’t have a “white working-class problem.” They have a “working-class problem,” which progressives have been reluctant to address honestly or boldly. The fact is that Democrats have lost support with all working-class voters across the electorate, including the Rising American Electorate of minorities, unmarried women, and millennials. This decline contributed mightily to the Democrats’ losses in the states and Congress and to the election of Donald Trump.”
Greenberg voiced an exceptionally sharp critique of his own party and its candidates. First, he takes on Barack Obama:
“Working-class Americans pulled back from Democrats in this last period of Democratic governance because of President Obama’s insistence on heralding economic progress and the bailout of the irresponsible elites, while ordinary people’s incomes crashed and they continued to struggle financially.””…
[Ed. note: Candidate Obama promised Rust Belt voters he’d renegotiate NAFTA. One month after his 2009 inauguration, he announced NAFTA would remain as is, that US should avoid “beggar thy neighbor” policies. 2/19/2009, “NAFTA Renegotiation Must Wait, Obama Says,“ Washington Post, Michael D. Shear…“The president’s message served as a reminder of last year’s private assessment by Canadian officials that then-candidate Obama’s frequent criticism of NAFTA was nothing more than campaign speeches aimed at chasing support among Rust Belt union workers.” And: 12/10/2009, “Obama’s Big Sellout: The President has Packed His Economic Team with Wall Street Insiders,“ Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi]
(continuing): “Hillary Clinton does not escape Greenberg’s wrath:
“In what may border on campaign malpractice, the Clinton campaign chose in the closing battle to ignore the economic stress not just of the working-class women who were still in play, but also of those within the Democrats’ own base, particularly among the minorities, millennials, and unmarried women.”
Greenberg does not stop there, shifting his focus from individual Democratic politicians to the Democratic Party itself: Past supporters “pulled back because of the Democrats’ seeming embrace of multinational trade agreements that have cost American jobs. The Democrats have moved from seeking to manage and champion the nation’s growing immigrant diversity to seeming to champion immigrant rights over American citizens’.
Instinctively and not surprisingly, the Democrats embraced the liberal values of America’s dynamic and best-educated metropolitan areas, seeming not to respect the values or economic stress of older voters in small-town and rural America. Finally, the Democrats also missed the economic stress and social problems in the cities themselves and in working-class suburbs.””…
[Ed. note: The Democrat Party has no desire to change: 4/5/17, “Democrats are still ignoring the people who could have helped them defeat Trump, Ohio party leaders say,“ Washington Post, William Wan, Youngstown, Ohio. (We know what it’s like. The Republican Party ignores Republican voters.)]
(continuing): “Along parallel lines, three analysts at the pro-Democratic Center for American Progress, Robert Griffin, John Halpin and Ruy Teixeira, argue that:
“Rather than debating whether Democrats should appeal to white working-class voters or voters of color — both necessary components of a successful electoral coalition, particularly at the state and local level — a more important question emerges: Why are Democrats losing support and seeing declining turnout from working-class voters of all races in many places?”
Griffin, Halpin and Teixeira argue that: “Democrats allowed themselves to become the party of the status quo–a status quo perceived to be elitist, exclusionary, and disconnected from the entire range of working-class concerns, but particularly from those voters in white working-class areas.
In the 2016 campaign, they continue, “rightly or wrongly, Hillary Clinton’s campaign exemplified a professional-class status quo that failed to rally enough working-class voters of color and failed to blunt the drift of white working-class voters to Republicans.”
“The Democrats don’t have a “white working-class problem.” They have a “working-class problem,” which progressives have been reluctant to address honestly or boldly. The fact is that Democrats have lost support with all working-class voters across the electorate, including the Rising American Electorate of minorities, unmarried women, and millennials. This decline contributed mightily to the Democrats’ losses in the states and Congress and to the election of Donald Trump.”
Greenberg voiced an exceptionally sharp critique of his own party and its candidates. First, he takes on Barack Obama:
“Working-class Americans pulled back from Democrats in this last period of Democratic governance because of President Obama’s insistence on heralding economic progress and the bailout of the irresponsible elites, while ordinary people’s incomes crashed and they continued to struggle financially.””…
[Ed. note: Candidate Obama promised Rust Belt voters he’d renegotiate NAFTA. One month after his 2009 inauguration, he announced NAFTA would remain as is, that US should avoid “beggar thy neighbor” policies. 2/19/2009, “NAFTA Renegotiation Must Wait, Obama Says,“ Washington Post, Michael D. Shear…“The president’s message served as a reminder of last year’s private assessment by Canadian officials that then-candidate Obama’s frequent criticism of NAFTA was nothing more than campaign speeches aimed at chasing support among Rust Belt union workers.” And: 12/10/2009, “Obama’s Big Sellout: The President has Packed His Economic Team with Wall Street Insiders,“ Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi]
(continuing): “Hillary Clinton does not escape Greenberg’s wrath:
“In what may border on campaign malpractice, the Clinton campaign chose in the closing battle to ignore the economic stress not just of the working-class women who were still in play, but also of those within the Democrats’ own base, particularly among the minorities, millennials, and unmarried women.”
Greenberg does not stop there, shifting his focus from individual Democratic politicians to the Democratic Party itself: Past supporters “pulled back because of the Democrats’ seeming embrace of multinational trade agreements that have cost American jobs. The Democrats have moved from seeking to manage and champion the nation’s growing immigrant diversity to seeming to champion immigrant rights over American citizens’.
Instinctively and not surprisingly, the Democrats embraced the liberal values of America’s dynamic and best-educated metropolitan areas, seeming not to respect the values or economic stress of older voters in small-town and rural America. Finally, the Democrats also missed the economic stress and social problems in the cities themselves and in working-class suburbs.””…
[Ed. note: The Democrat Party has no desire to change: 4/5/17, “Democrats are still ignoring the people who could have helped them defeat Trump, Ohio party leaders say,“ Washington Post, William Wan, Youngstown, Ohio. (We know what it’s like. The Republican Party ignores Republican voters.)]
(continuing): “Along parallel lines, three analysts at the pro-Democratic Center for American Progress, Robert Griffin, John Halpin and Ruy Teixeira, argue that:
“Rather than debating whether Democrats should appeal to white working-class voters or voters of color — both necessary components of a successful electoral coalition, particularly at the state and local level — a more important question emerges: Why are Democrats losing support and seeing declining turnout from working-class voters of all races in many places?”
Griffin, Halpin and Teixeira argue that: “Democrats allowed themselves to become the party of the status quo–a status quo perceived to be elitist, exclusionary, and disconnected from the entire range of working-class concerns, but particularly from those voters in white working-class areas.
In the 2016 campaign, they continue, “rightly or wrongly, Hillary Clinton’s campaign exemplified a professional-class status quo that failed to rally enough working-class voters of color and failed to blunt the drift of white working-class voters to Republicans.”
For Democrats who argue that the adoption of economic populism is the best way to counter Trump, Guy Molyneux, a partner in Garin’s polling firm, warns in his American Prospect essay, “A Tale of Two Populisms,” that voters drawn to Trump are anti-government, deeply wary of a pro-government Democratic Party.
“Many analysts and leading Democrats,” Molyneux writes “have attributed Donald Trump’s impressive 2016 vote margin among white working-class voters to his embrace of economic populism.”…
While “Democrats can take obvious comfort in a story about Trump winning in large measure because he stole our ideas,” Molyneux writes, “this assessment misses the mark in important ways.”
Why? Because, “Trump’s brand of populism — and more importantly, that of working-class whites — differs in important ways from the populism of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.”
“Many analysts and leading Democrats,” Molyneux writes “have attributed Donald Trump’s impressive 2016 vote margin among white working-class voters to his embrace of economic populism.”…
While “Democrats can take obvious comfort in a story about Trump winning in large measure because he stole our ideas,” Molyneux writes, “this assessment misses the mark in important ways.”
Why? Because, “Trump’s brand of populism — and more importantly, that of working-class whites — differs in important ways from the populism of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.”
While the populism espoused by Sanders and Warren is economic, challenging C.E.O.s, major corporations and “the billionaire class,” Trump is the messenger of what Molyneux calls “political populism,” which “is, fundamentally, a story about the failure of government.”
Molyneux writes:
“White working-class voters’ negative view of government spending undermines their potential support for many progressive economic policies. While they want something done about jobs, wages, education, and health care, they are also fiscally conservative and deeply skeptical of government’s ability to make positive change. So political populism not only differs from economic populism, but also serves as a powerful barrier to it.”
Or, as I have written elsewhere, Democrats cannot simply argue in favor of redistributive government on economic matters because defecting whites are deeply hostile to a government they see as coercive on matters of race.”…
[Ed. note: “Coercive?” What’s more “coercive” than government stripping you naked and forcing you to use unisex bathrooms, forcing little girls to be in a closed environment in which they may be forced to view penises of adult males?]
(continuing): “In May, the Public Religion Research Institute released a report, “Beyond Economics: Fears of Cultural Displacement Pushed the White Working Class to Trump.” It found that “more than half (52%) of white working-class Americans believe discrimination against whites is as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities,” and that “four in ten white working-class Americans agree” with the statement that “efforts to increase diversity almost always come at the expense of whites.”
In a separate argument, Nicholas Carnes and Noam Lupu, professors of political science at Duke and Vanderbilt, challenge a basic premise on the left — that the populism of Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren could have stemmed the loss of non-college whites to Trump.
Carnes and Lupu contend instead that the oft-cited theory that Trump won because of support from the low-income white working class is itself wrong.
The two scholars provide data showing that “among white people without college degrees who voted for Trump, nearly 60 percent were in the top half of the income distribution,” and that “white non-Hispanic voters without college degrees making below the median household income made up only 25 percent of Trump voters.”
Carnes and Lupu contend instead that the oft-cited theory that Trump won because of support from the low-income white working class is itself wrong.
The two scholars provide data showing that “among white people without college degrees who voted for Trump, nearly 60 percent were in the top half of the income distribution,” and that “white non-Hispanic voters without college degrees making below the median household income made up only 25 percent of Trump voters.”
Democratic pessimism today stands in contrast to the optimism that followed the elections of 2006, 2008 and 2012.
At that time, the consensus was that Democrats had found the key to sustained victory. The party saw its future in ascendant constituencies: empowered minorities, singles, social liberals and the well-educated.
Democratic activists saw the Republican Party as doomed to defeat without a radical change of course because it was tied to overlapping constituencies that they viewed as of waning significance — for example, older, non-college, evangelical white Christians….
At that time, the consensus was that Democrats had found the key to sustained victory. The party saw its future in ascendant constituencies: empowered minorities, singles, social liberals and the well-educated.
Democratic activists saw the Republican Party as doomed to defeat without a radical change of course because it was tied to overlapping constituencies that they viewed as of waning significance — for example, older, non-college, evangelical white Christians….
Before 2016, no one, Democrat or Republican, thought that the man who would bring about radical change would be Donald Trump, except, perhaps, Trump himself….
Trump has successfully forced Democrats to begin to examine the party’s neglected liabilities, the widespread resentment of its elites and the frail loyalty of its supporters.“
………………………..
Added: “Non-college white voters” aren’t exactly a fringe group. Following maps from Dec. 2017, “Party Hoppers: Understanding Voters Who Switched Partisan Affiliation,” Democracy Fund Voter Study Group:
Added: “Non-college white voters” aren’t exactly a fringe group. Following maps from Dec. 2017, “Party Hoppers: Understanding Voters Who Switched Partisan Affiliation,” Democracy Fund Voter Study Group:
……………..
Democrat Party exodus began in 2011 and has continued:
Dec. 2017, “Party Hoppers: Understanding Voters Who Switched Partisan Affiliation,” Democracy Fund Voter Study Group, Author: Robert Griffin (formerly with Center for American Progress)
*While most Obama to Trump voters once identified as Democrats, a majority now identify as Republicans. Since 2011, there has been a 28 percent decline in Democratic identification and a 43 percent increase in Republican identification among these voters….
Partisan affiliation is one of the most stable features of the modern American electorate. While individuals’ feelings toward politicians or their attitudes about policy can change quickly, partisanship is a deep-seated identity resistant to change.”…
...........
No comments:
Post a Comment