Let’s get down to brass tacks ...

[DC Tom]

5 minutes ago, Juror#8 said:

 

Do you think there are political questions that uniquely affect one race over another? And if so, does that make them fair game in national

politics?

 

I think you have to add to that the question: "How many of these issues do you think are real, vs. manufactured?"

 

Because let's face it, some political issues (e.g. immigration) heavily impact different races based on real, measurable, objective criteria.  Others (e.g. 150-year old statues) are only political issues because we're told they are.

[BringBackOrton]

1 hour ago, Juror#8 said:

 

Do you think that there is a demographic block of voting significance in this country that feels that there is has been cultural shift happening over the last twenty years away from a traditional demography to something that’s more sympathetic to a minority collective (blacks, women, Hispanic, gay, Asian, etc)?

This wasn't addressed at me so forgive me, but I think your view of that demographic voting block is incorrect.

 

I think there's a demographic block of significance that feels that the minority collective is worse off, not better off.

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

This was the primary driver. Not identity politics. Sure, that fits the bill for a small percentage of people who pulled the lever for Trump but not the majority. 

 

(I say this as a west-coaster who wrote in for Gabbard because I couldn't vote for either)

Facts.

 

Clinton was the machine.  Trump was the wrench.  I'd say 80% of his supporters say, "He's a maniac who says dumb ****, but I couldn't vote for Hilly."

[keepthefaith]

2 hours ago, Juror#8 said:

 

Do you think that there is a demographic block of voting significance in this country that feels that there is has been cultural shift happening over the last twenty years away from a traditional demography to something that’s more sympathetic to a minority collective (blacks, women, Hispanic, gay, Asian, etc)?

 

Yes but how significant I don't know.  I think that illegal immigration has fueled some animosity toward hispanics and other ethnic/racial groups. Not because they are hispanic but because they are here illegally and drawing wages and benefits often and people rightfully don't like that.  Politicians who are sympathtic and after votes (from those also sympathetic) pander and it's obvious and people don't like that either. 

 

People also don't like false and exaggerated cries of racism and we've seen a lot of that in recent years and since Hillary and Dems fanned those flames, people don't like that either.  That hurts the real cause of addressing racism (where it actually exists).

 

Trump made bigoted statements if you are viewing them through that lens. 

 

And there are bigoted voters but we only complain about the white ones even though they exist in all shapes, sizes and colors.

Edited April 30, 2018 by keepthefaith

[PPP Is Full of Racism]

a lot of racists probably voted for trump. lots probably voted for killary. should their votes not count ?

[Juror#8]

31 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

I see things in economic terms over racial terms.

 

Race is used as a divider, especially among the poor. Poor whites versus poor blacks versus poor hispanics. Quite frankly, the issues that affect poor whites are similar to poor blacks. Family disintegration, drugs, violence and most importantly globalization that benefits business owners over employees.

And yet you never hear about those common interests, only about "divisions." Why is that?

 

 

I agree. Race is used as a divider. 

 

But if (and I agree with you here), common issues among the lower middle class and working poor are the same, why did 65% of white, non-college educated whites with non-salaried jobs choose Trump, and 80%+ of both black and Hispanic non-college educated voters working non-salaried jobs choose Clinton?

 

https://www.prri.org/research/white-working-class-attitudes-economy-trade-immigration-election-donald-trump/

 

If the issues were the same affecting both, and the parties could speak to the issues race-neutrally, wouldn’t there be more alignment there?

 

It makes me wonder is there an intrinsic political racial division. 

10 minutes ago, m_w_hunter said:

a lot of racists probably voted for trump. lots probably voted for killary. should their votes not count ?

 

I think that they should because their voice is as meaningful as any. 

15 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Yes but how significant I don't know.  I think that illegal immigration has fueled some animosity toward hispanics and other ethnic/racial groups. Not because they are hispanic but because they are here illegally and drawing wages and benefits often and people rightfully don't like that.  Politicians who are sympathtic and after votes (from those also sympathetic) pander and it's obvious and people don't like that either. 

 

People also don't like false and exaggerated cries of racism and we've seen a lot of that in recent years and since Hillary and Dems fanned those flames, people don't like that either.  That hurts the real cause of addressing racism (where it actually exists).

 

Trump made bigoted statements if you are viewing them through that lens. 

 

And there are bigoted voters but we only complain about the white ones even though they exist in all shapes, sizes and colors.

 

I think the bigoted voters of all stripes were exposed during this cycle. 

 

The idea that there is a “black lives matter” to me is anathema to a civil and a color-blind society where one’s color doesn’t subject them to increased directional scrutiny. 

 

It should be “all lives matter” - and that would be a fair and coherent statement and a point that everyone could jump onto and get behind. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

7 minutes ago, Juror#8 said:

It makes me wonder is there an intrinsic political racial division. 

 

I think it's because the Democrats have a lock on the media. When the media's telling black people that Hillary stood for and with them when she CLEARLY didn't stand with or for anyone BESIDES HERSELF, you get results like what you see.

 

Trump had a message that hit poor white people hard, and it had nothing to do with race. It had everything to do with how globalism destroyed manufacturing and by extension the stability of their lives and families. Additionally, he linked mainstream republicans to that issue, as well as democrats. While I wasn't a fan of Trump, he was absolutely correct in his message. The mainstream politicians in DC sold all of us out with deals like NAFTA and allowing china access to the WTO.

 

In the meantime, the Democrats played ONE message to minority communities: "Donald trump is a racist."

 

 

Edited April 30, 2018 by joesixpack

[Juror#8]

18 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

I think it's because the Democrats have a lock on the media. When the media's telling black people that Hillary stood for and with them when she CLEARLY didn't stand with or for anyone BESIDES HERSELF, you get results like what you see.

 

Trump had a message that hit poor white people hard, and it had nothing to do with race. It had everything to do with how globalism destroyed manufacturing and by extension the stability of their lives and families. By extension, he linked mainstream republicans to that issue, as well as democrats. While I wasn't a fan of Trump, he was absolutely correct in his message. The mainstream politicians in DC sold all of us out with deals like NAFTA and allowing china access to the WTO.

 

In the meantime, the Democrats played ONE message to minority communities: "Donald trump is a racist."

 

 

 

Thats fair enough and I agree largely with what you’re saying. 

 

I think that Trump foreclosed the black vote and rightly so. He would have never dislodged it from the democrats. Clinton’s message was all about “Trump is a boogeyman who will resurrect slave trade blocks on the courthouse steps and kick your neighbors out of the country.” 

 

That message didn’t galvanize young white and minority voters who Obama relied on because they can’t see past their twitter feed. They see everything in the context of normative online multiculturalism. What that boogeyman message did do was make her campaign seem like it was predicated on identity politics which pissed off middle America who wondered how anyone could predicate an entire campaign on what’s gonna happen to blackey or women if the other guy wins. Especially when the other guy was talking about localizing jobs and defending paychecks. 

 

What I still wonder is how the middle American voting block coalesces moving forward - around economic issues or as a rejection of the idea that minority issues is a political platform?

 

Because if the latter does happen, what we will see in 15-20 years is even more racially aligned party allegiances. 

 

As a a black man who has voted Republican twice nationally (Bush in 2004 and Romney in 2012), that’s tough to stomach. 

 

Edited April 30, 2018 by Juror#8

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

3 minutes ago, Juror#8 said:

What I still wonder is how the middle American voting block coalesces moving forward - around economic issues or as a rejection of the idea that minority issues is a political platform?

 

I think smart and successful politicians will continue to push an anti-globalization agenda. But that's just me. I also think that our current political parties have a limited shelf life.

 

 

 

Edited April 30, 2018 by joesixpack

[Joe Miner]

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

This was the primary driver. Not identity politics. Sure, that fits the bill for a small percentage of people who pulled the lever for Trump but not the majority. 

 

(I say this as a west-coaster who wrote in for Gabbard because I couldn't vote for either)

 

Almost all of my family is fairly conservative.  Most of their friends are conservative.

I work I a very conservative industry.

 

I know almost no one who is actually a Trump supporter. Almost all of them voted Trump because they refused to view for Hillary. Most of them couldn't stand Trump either.

 

It didn't even come down to a difference in position on any of the issues.  It was purely Trump isn't Hillary.

[IDBillzFan]

1 hour ago, joesixpack said:

Race is used as a divider, especially among the poor. Poor whites versus poor blacks versus poor hispanics versus poor white hispanics.

 

Fixed that for you.

 

Wait. Is white hispanics still a thing, or did it just work in that one scenario?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, LABillzFan said:

 

Fixed that for you.

 

Wait. Is white hispanics still a thing, or did it just work in that one scenario?

 

Fair enough. With hispanics, conflating race and culture is very easy.

 

6 minutes ago, Joe Miner said:

 

Almost all of my family is fairly conservative.  Most of their friends are conservative.

I work I a very conservative industry.

 

I know almost no one who is actually a Trump supporter. Almost all of them voted Trump because they refused to view for Hillary. Most of them couldn't stand Trump either.

 

It didn't even come down to a difference in position on any of the issues.  It was purely Trump isn't Hillary.

 

This is where I am. He had ONE job, and he did that one job.

 

[DC Tom]

2 hours ago, Joe Miner said:

 

Almost all of my family is fairly conservative.  Most of their friends are conservative.

I work I a very conservative industry.

 

I know almost no one who is actually a Trump supporter. Almost all of them voted Trump because they refused to view for Hillary. Most of them couldn't stand Trump either.

 

It didn't even come down to a difference in position on any of the issues.  It was purely Trump isn't Hillary.

 

I know quite a few whose logic was "I hate Trunp, but I always vote Republican," as well.

 

For all the crying of racism, sexism, Russophilism, Naziism, etc., the election came down to nothing more than voter suppression: in swing states, Hillary and the DNC did a much better job of suppressing Democratic votes than Trump did Republican votes.

[/dev/null]

Trump was the second worst Presidential candidate of my lifetime but he had the fortune of running against the worst

[B-Man]

2 hours ago, Joe Miner said:

 

Almost all of my family is fairly conservative.  Most of their friends are conservative.

I work I a very conservative industry.

 

I know almost no one who is actually a Trump supporter. Almost all of them voted Trump because they refused to vote for Hillary. Most of them couldn't stand Trump either.

 

It didn't even come down to a difference in position on any of the issues.  It was purely Trump isn't Hillary.

 

 

No, no.....................that's not right.

 

 Straight white male voters were attracted to Trump out of fear that their social significance keeps dwindling...........it's a fact

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited April 30, 2018 by B-Man

[Teddy KGB]

Meltdown continues for the OP ? 

 

[Koko78]

5 hours ago, Juror#8 said:

 

Not sure it’s racist. What I’m interested in, though, is there a burgeoning type of identity politics and what impact could it have in 2020. 

 

The Dems have traditionally been the party of whistle blowing identity politics and leaning on traditional notions and affiliations between certain racial groups and their historical allegiances to the Democratic Party that it was interesting to hear someone say that there was an element of that from the other side in 2016.

 

I attributed Trump’s win to socio-economic pragmatism and a distancing from run-of-the-mill political paradigms and not to anything from an identity politics standpoint. Just wanted to know if that was a miss on my part and if anyone sees an philosophical shift that Republicans can advantage from. 

 

I don't believe that there's a new type of identity politics; this is the same crap the Democrats have been spewing for ages: "agree with us or you're a racist/misogynist/bigot/redneck/moron/I'm offended/blah blah blah!" Hell, even Jimmy Carter mentioned years ago (during Obama's first term) that people opposed Obama's policies because he was black.

 

The Democrats have gone so far, for so long, into the Clintonian 'attack the messenger at all costs, while ignoring the message' playbook, that they have nothing of substance left for a platform. I couldn't tell you what Hillary's platform was on most any issue. The message that I got from her campaign was that 'Trump is evil and must be defeated, because I'm entitled to the job.'

 

I would agree, in part, with your analysis of why Trump won. It wasn't because he was pandering to white males, it's because he was pandering to working-class voters that he would improve the economy, reduce illegal immigration, eliminate ISIS, get tough with trade deals, etc. Those messages resonate with a great many voters. Mostly, though, I think his win was primarily because Hillary was a really schiffy candidate.

 

It's hard to say what to take away from Trump's win for long-term GOP success; he is such an anomaly as a politician. The Democrats' current strategy is pretty clear: trash the GOP candidate to derail their message and force the GOP to spend all their time fighting against the accusations rather than talking about the issues. Unfortunately, the GOP has been running crap candidates in the special elections, making the Democrat strategy a really good one.

[keepthefaith]

The party in power always screws up.  In more recent times that is Bill Clinton, W, Obama.  In each case the country wanted change at the end of their terms.  2016 was a Republican slam dunk except that the candidates kept it close with their own brands of mediocrity (and I am being kind). 

 

2024 should be a Dem victory but Trump is very capable of shortening that cycle in 2020. 

[Prickly Pete]

11 hours ago, Juror#8 said:

 

1. Straight white male voters were attracted to Trump out of fear that their social significance keeps dwindling.

 

2. The same voters felt that Trump was their best hope to stop other segments/demographics (blacks, women, gay, everyone else) in society from gradually displacing them. 

 

3. Trump understands the perceived suffering and devolution that is happening in the white male community. 

 

I’m not positing anything. There is no thesis here to discern. This is based on a conversation that I recently had with a republican state legislator and an article that I recently read. 

 

Just want to know if you think that of the three points listed above, the preponderance is mostly true or mostly false. 

 

*This is a question about identity politics and not an appraisal of his current economic record. 

 

Loaded questions.

[Paulus]

That is all kind of poo... I mean, democrats constantly demonizing whitey and accusing normal folks of privilege really gets taxing. "(We) didn't leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left (us)."

 

Among other things, a lot of it had to do with Trump shitting all over the PC garbage. (For me)

Edited May 1, 2018 by Paulus

[Doc Brown]

Hillary Clinton had a few things working against her.  The first is she was Hillary Clinton and was the most insider candidate in an outsider election.  The second was the only candidate from the same party to win the presidency after eight years of that party being in power since FDR was the first Bush (who also was the last one term president).  The economy was relatively strong in 2000 and 2016, but Gore and Hillary had to follow more likable candidates in Bill Clinton and Obama.  There was also a push back against globalization that Trump took advantage of.  The "build the wall" chant and bring the factory jobs back home rhetoric Trump used during the campaign flipped a lot of Obama voters to Trump.  Especially in the rust belt states. Finally, there's something to the fact that people were sick of SJW's and political correctness being shoved down their throat.  Just my two cents.