Where to begin. Most basically, I predicted Clinton would win (the whole time), and moreover get more than 300 electoral votes (pre-Comey). It was Trump that did so. Earlier on, I said that the “normal” Republicans would organize to take the nomination away from him at the convention, when actually they were all too eager to roll over. One thing I think I avoided claiming was that the Hillary ground game in the states would win it for her. But, I pretty much believed it. So still feel wrong there.
I didn’t post about this, but pretty late in the evening I read from a couple sources that turnout was modestly up, about 5%. I should have questioned this more, like so many other things. We know today that turnout was way down, and especially among Democrats (generally how one side loses…).
All that said, I’m trying not to place blame too much, even myself. Error is acknowledged.
He represents the incoherent, inchoate and ill-informed rage against the fallout of neoliberal globalisation that has found a home in a newly mobilised and racialised nationalism across the west. His victory will provide momentary solace to his supporters but no lasting remedy. Clinton will not be jailed; no wall will be built; he will not defeat Isis, but he will appoint supreme court justices, he can start wars. In short, he will not deliver on his most outlandish promises precisely because they are outlandish. He exemplifies the problem; he has no solutions. Electing Trump: the moment America laid waste to democracy as we know it | US elections 2016 | The Guardian
People have a right to be angry, and a powerful, intersectional left agenda can direct that anger where it belongs, while fighting for holistic solutions that will bring a frayed society together… So let’s get out of shock as fast as we can and build the kind of radical movement that has a genuine answer to the hate and fear represented by the Trumps of this world. Let’s set aside whatever is keeping us apart and start right now. It was the Democrats' embrace of neoliberalism that won it for Trump | Naomi Klein | The Guardian
Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media.
People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids – all while the rich become very much richer.
To the degree that Mr Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him.
If by that you mean he states that many Trump voters were/are currently middle class, then yes.
Early evidence suggests depressed Democratic turnout, indicative of a lack of enthusiasm for Clinton’s campaign. But Trump appears to have done best among middle-income Americans, and narrowly beat Clinton among the affluent. But the biggest shift to Trump – a 16-point swing– came from those earning less than $30,000 a year, even though he still lags behind Clinton among this group. Last time they voted for the country’s first black president. This time they shifted to a candidate backed by avowed racists, and ensured he won. The left needs a new populism fast. It’s clear what happens if we fail | Owen Jones | The Guardian
[quote=“TailOfTruth, post:29, topic:89019”] (quoting The Guardian)
Early evidence suggests depressed Democratic turnout, indicative of a lack of enthusiasm for Clinton’s campaign. But Trump appears to have done best among middle-income Americans, and narrowly beat Clinton among the affluent. But the biggest shift to Trump – a 16-point swing– came from those earning less than $30,000 a year, even though he still lags behind Clinton among this group.[/quote]
Interesting…
Activated some white voters in lower income bands (and plenty of white voters in other income bands…), still less low income voters than the Dems. The D’s traditionally get the majority of the low income vote; did their low-income numbers drop much? How much change is new voters coming in and previous voters dropping out, or was there some conversion?
Anyone got full data on what proportion of his vote came from which economic groups, and how it relates to previous years? That NYT link that the Guardian draws from isn’t working for me.
[quote=“TailOfTruth, post:29, topic:89019”] (quoting The Guardian)
Last time they voted for the country’s first black president. This time they shifted to a candidate backed by avowed racists, and ensured he won.
[/quote]
I suspect that the sub-$30K voters who came out for Obama and the sub-$30K voters who came out for Trump are rather different groups of people. Changes in subgroup turnout rather than political conversion.
Maybe, or maybe they were the same voting block. Either way it will be very interesting to look at the detailed exit polling information on that specific group once it is widely available. All that being said, I do get the feeling Trump targeted, and was successful in drawing out, a group of voters with historically low turnout. I have nothing to really back that up, but I definitely have a suspicion (which could be completely wrong, although it would explain the pollsters fuck ups in predicting the winner).
