Hating 62 million people

    is not just wrong , but also could  be how  we ´ll  blow it . The way we  lose the next election.

    The initial clause is  the most important one . The reason to do the right thing is , it´s the right thing.  But... it is nice to win. And immensely important to  those who will be desperately damaged while this nonsense continues.

    But . First clauses first. What are those 62 million like? Ad arguendo some number , say 1 million, are no longer  worth considering, it they ever were. Rapists, Fenway drunks  who taunted Adam Jones last week. Yes here in the City on the Hill there are deplorables . Drunk ,in the bleachers. Who in our own black hearts we think  would have been served properly if some one sent a foul ball in their direction. (Where is  Luke Appling when we need him?) But forget them. How about all the other people in the stands? If you take my metaphor.


    My friend Charlie was discussing a  ¨bankers´ meeting¨ ( i.e. lots of liquor and  suspect information) we´d held. ¨I always know Ken ( the assistant treasurer) is in the room ¨ he said, despairingly ¨ when I hear someone say from several tables away  ¨where you are completely wrong . Furthermore...¨ ¨

    As a politician friend  says  ¨they don´t weigh them, they count em¨.

    If we´re going to get out of this mess , we   need em. All 61 million of them . Whenever we can get them. Issue by issue. Some one who can´t their head around global warming might understand a 23 year old unemployed pregnant mom in Biloxi-or where ever-absolutely can´t make two trips to arrange the abortion she must have for the sake of the child she´s trying hard to care for already.

    But maybe if you insultingly tell her today  she´s  ¨ completely wrong¨  about climate change  she´ll lose interest in defending Planned Parenthood tomorrow.




    Oh please, sure, my kid wrecks the car and a good stern talking to will forestall any repeat. For the fourth or fifth time.

    We played this kumbaya game in Jan 2009 when the whole shithouse was coming down around us, but we didn't wrap either the Gulf War or the economic debacle firmly around the Republicans' necks, so the zombie vampire walked out of the cemetery and did it again - not just with impunity but with passioned glee. This time we put a stake through the heart. Okay, we'll use garlic and a cross, so those that aren't actually vampires/deplorables have a chance of surviving, but they should sure as fuck know they elected the most crooked treasonous anti-people candidate they could have found and I for one sure as fuck don't plan on letting them forget about it for the next 30 years. That'll lose us an election? Well gee, that's what we've been doing anyway while they steal and obstruct and gerrymander and what all.

    Here's another deal - I think there was some tampering with voting machines or the data vaults or something that occurred across at least several Midwest states and in other obvious close states, but because we're so goddamned stupid that we don't even have standard vote audits, anyone planning such a thing knows it's much easier - because U-S-A. Because to imply that voting might not be secure is worse treason than stealing an election. Because our laws on the matter suck, and the richest country on earth is more worried about not paying for a recount than making sure the crooks didn't get in the cookie jar, and even when a candidate would pay for it they still shut it down And that's for the requirement of obvious malfeasance. Audits should happen whether we notice something wrong or not.

    Whether a hack comes out in the next round of investigations even with the latest shakeups, I still have my hopes - because it wasn't just Guccifer grabbing data - the surveillance state I've been bitching Including FISA & other programs seems to have been quite active the last year on a number of fronts and a number of suspects, and between those records and as the indictments go out and pleas and confessions start happening, if there was something, it's quite possibly going to pop out.

    But that given, I sure don't plan on making it simpler for all these jackasses to excuse their behavior as "both sides do it" and Condi's "no one could have known" - this is a chapter of infamy that needs to be made use of, something like Michael's book, a crisis to not let go to waste or we're simply idiots.

    Flavius, what message do you think will attract Trump voters if Democrats continue to support minorities, abortion , homosexuals, and women?

    As always you´ve asked a good question. As a cop out I could say, read the Politico piece which Michael W. attached below.. But  good questions should be answered so here goes.

    A democrat might attract  Trump voters   if she were not pro choice. Or did not endorse making college tuition free. Or did not endorse requiring the police to wear cameras. Or did support´s Trump´s Wall.Or endorsed Netanyahu. 

    I personally would disagree with him on  any of those positions. But I´d vote for her even  if she ran on a platform that included any one of them. I´d rather vote for him  and then try to change her mind then let his opponent- who disagreed with me on all of them- win.


    I beg to differ that you need all of them. You just need the ones who voted for both Obama and Trump. It's been ever thus since after LBJ days: there's roughly 1/3 of the country that's hard right and you don't need them to win, you just need the other 2/3.

    Edit to add: and after that, with Congress, the secret is to GOTV in mid terms. Because the far right will get  out the vote in mid-terms while too many of the 2/3 that elected a moderate or liberal president sit home.

    FLAVIUS, You Are full of shit. hahahahaha

    I have been on line all frickin day.

    THIS IS THE FUNNIEST PIECE OF.......I have seen all day.

    I hereby render unto Flavius the Dayly Blog of the Day Award for this here Dagblog Site, given to all of you from all of me.

    I have no explanation for my reaction.

    I probably need some mental health.


    You pounding the save button again, DD? ;)

    Mike, I hit it once.

    And then the loop sign hits and....

    Then I attempt to get the hell out of here.

    I promise you, I do not hit the save button more than once!

    I still cannot get on line with the new pc.

    I shall endeavor to improve.

    Confess, you're a comment-pounding, Trump-loving troll

    OKAY, I hereby render unto Mike W the Dayly Line of the Day Award for this here Dagblog Site, given to all of him from all of me.


    Never in my life.....




    Are you eating those mushrooms again?

    I argued against this, if you recall.

    I think if you track the frequency of keyboard thumps you'll find Dick secretly communicating with Alfa Bank to launder Russian money for the elections. I'm just sayin. But watch those overposts - there's a pattern...

    Drunk or not, me and.. 5  ....6 or 7 buds from the bleachers could whip Flavius ass, or any other sorry ass 'Charlie', from the MVP Club or Jim Beam Suites at Yankee Stadium.

    I think we all agree that democrats need to run candidates in red and rural areas. But as I read the article I'm wondering exactly what Bustos is doing differently than other dem candidates.

    When she does talk, she talks as much as she can about jobs and wages and the economy and as little as she can about guns and abortion and other socially divisive issues—which, for her, are “no-win conversations,” She’s a pro-choice Catholic and an advocate for limited gun control, but she has supported the Keystone pipeline and called for improvements to Barack Obama’s “imperfect” Affordable Care Act. “I’ve had fellow members who are very upset with me,” she continued. “I’ve had somebody say, ‘Are you even a Democrat?’” Last fall, she was noncommittal about how she would have voted on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, but she called it a “tough one for me,” given the state of industry in her district.

    She's pro-choice and for limited gun control. How is that not democratic? I'm sure that every democrat in rural areas who is pro-choice and for limited gun control does everything they can not to talk about it. She's noncommittal on TPP. Wasn't that the official democratic position in the last campaign? As is calling the ACA imperfect and calling for improvements. She seems like a very typical center left democrat. She may have a bit more charisma than the average politician and an interesting campaign style but other than that what is the message this article is trying to send?

    I think the message is pretty clear. From the article:

    “On these sensitive topics,” she said—Black Lives Matter, transgender bathroom laws and so on—“I don’t dwell on them.”

    Black population in the Quad Cities is 3.7%, significantly below the local Hispanic population of 7.1% (which likely is growing much faster, so I can see that this isn't the focus of her constituency).

    The framing is insulting, though - putting BLM alongside transgender bathrooms as equivalent in concerns and societal worries. Anyway, I'd suggest not taking too much offense - I don't suppose black New York City politicians discuss the plight of American farmers and rural voters every day. Still only 24 hours as the earth spins.

    The framing was offensive. Trump is forming a commission to Support the myth of voter fraud. Jeff Sessions is not going to oppose actual voter suppression. We need Democrats in Congress to combat this nonsense. Hopefully she will be an ally. We need Democrats to have subpoena power in Congress and to block Trump. We also need Democrats who are willing to fight for all the little guys.

    The other offense is when Liberals are labeled as the problem. Trump encouraged fistfights at rallies, but the real problem is college kids who object to certain speakers on campus. I'm willing to bet some of the critics of the current college students forget about the campus protests they found acceptable when they were in college. Liberals don't hate Trump voters. Trump voters hate us. We are on defense. Trump supporters are not religious, or politically motivated. They just enjoy seeing Liberals disgusted. They are so filled with hate that they are willing to gut their own health care and install a dictator. Liberals are not the problem.


    As I read it, Bustos focuses on finding common ground with her constituents, and the main difference with other Dems isn't the positions she takes but what she emphasizes and how she engages with voters. That said, she may not be so different from red-district Democrats, and I'm not endorsing her or the article. I just found it interesting food for thought and relevant to Flavius's post.

    She's a tomboy, spot welds, wears a hard hat and drives a forklift, makes a good reporter, "beer and shots Democrat". But still it's a fair amount of nostalgia for how things were, or the bring-manufacturing-back mystique.

    Here's a guess for you all - I think in 30 years most of our meat will be produced through cloned cells with no live animal in sight, at which point animal husbandry will resemble a cross between a monster Amazon warehouse and a Merck pharmaceuticals lab.

    How are our politicians preparing for that day, amidst all this joy in hog slopping? Because it will be much uglier than the effect of Uber on taxis or offshoring on the auto business. My point being our ideal is always pandering to the past, not preparing for the future, aside from a few job producing initiatives. We know more tsunamis are coming - like the one in 2005 that killed 300,000 Indonesians - but we're still filling pails on the beach. 

    My other note is that like most impressive female politicians, Bustos didn't enter national politics until 51, so 15-20 years later than her male counterparts. That's not a complete show stopper, but it brings some disadvantages in terms of connections and institutional knowledge. I guess now  that we've upped the expectations/acceptable limit on presidential candidates to 75 or so, that's less of an issue.

    I'm a little disappointed in you, I totally thought you were going talk about the only Bustos worth talking about!

    You are welcome!

    Favorite restaurant in Hong Kong was a combo Filipino-Indonesian with a rather groovy karaoke/live lounge band scene. Thinking about it as I write this, it sounds like hell aside from the sambal, but it wasn't.

    What does the Gweilo say? Check out Joey Boy - Thai rapper, not Pinoy, but you'll probably dig.

    Although this one is the best one.

    Dwayne the Rock 2020. Outsider. Smart. Likely more so than Ronnie, also an actor.

    Will wrestle swamp alligators. Twist arms. Friends with Arnie. Helps sick kids.

    Authentic. Believes in listening. Red state bona fides,  authentic real deal. Independent. 

    Multicultural Samoan/black/white. M. Moore says do it.


    Here you go, from a demographic that puts the purity test problem in a nutshell:

    Do Muslims Have to Be Democrats Now?

    op-ed by WAJAHAT ALI @ NYTimes.com Sunday Review, May 13

    excerpt but I suggest reading the whole thing:

    [....] “As a Muslim, I’d vote for Jesus, but the Republicans won’t let him in, and the Democrats don’t believe in him,” said Hussein Rashid, a professor of religion at Barnard College, who concedes that he’s a tad bitter about his political options. Like him, many American Muslims can’t imagine voting for the “Home Alone 2” actor who trumpeted anti-Muslim bigotry all the way to the White House. They also support progressive policies, like affordable health care and a living wage. But privately, they adhere to traditional values, believe in God and think gay marriage is a sin, even though an increasing number support marriage equality.

    Can the progressive tent stretch to include them?

    Sabir Ibrahim, a Pakistani-American lawyer from the San Francisco Bay Area, is skeptical. Even though he “held his nose and voted for Hillary Clinton,” he perceives a hostility from progressives toward socially conservative sensibilities [....]


    A Pew study noted that Blacks are more religious than there white Democratic Party counterparts. Democrats often forget to address concerns of religious black voters when it comes to LGBTQ issues.


    Some conservatives see the recent defeat of the gay rights municipal ordinance in Houston—partially because of resistance among African-American voters—as a signal that Democrats will face increasing tension between their growing faction of secular whites and their more religiously devout African-American and Latino base.

    “White liberals simply care a great deal more about some things—the social condition of so-called transsexuals, climate change—than do non-white voters who nonetheless lean heavily toward the Democrats,” Kevin Williamson, a correspondent for the conservative National Review, wrote recently. “[T]he current model of Democratic politics—poor and largely non-white people providing the muscle and rich white liberals calling the shots—is unsustainable.”

    But Smith, the Pew associate director, notes that while black and Latino Democrats do sometimes take different views on social issues than secular white liberals, affinity on other issues—from immigration to government activism—so far has trumped those disagreements. “You are not seeing any evidence that there is less support for Democrats among racial and ethnic minorities because [religious] ‘nones’ are a growing share of the party,” he says.

    Opponents of the transgender ordinance were able to use fear to get black women to vote against the ordinance.


    Yes some black women vote against their own economic interests for religious reasons. As do some of my otherwise quite liberal catholics friends. . When in early in his administration Bush was grappling with -of all things- Stem Cell research it was  one of them he summoned to the White House to give him advice.

    My position is that we complicate the vital task of Detrumping this county  by the way we handle the many ¨liberal enough¨  Trump voters  -who unfortunately also don´t agree with transgender rights, or ¨choice¨, or guns, or a more , not less,progressive tax code, or charter schools.  Or conversely do want to allow Republicans to speak at Graduations; Or want to apply  to Goldman Sachs .

     No everyone is not  ¨liberal enough¨ . But damn few are really deplorable.  Far fewer  than actually voted against Hillary.

    We blew it. 

    If  we disagree with them  on some item. Or many . If they're  ¨liberal enough¨ they should know we want them to join  us anyway and argue their  case within the big tent.

    ¨Hate¨ sucks. 

    Flavius, you make good sense. I'd like to see that start catching on. And yeah, hate sucks. 

    You miss the point. Black voters cast votes against LGBTQ people. When the absurdity and bigotry of those votes were pointed out, black voters changed their votes. There had to be a discussion before the change. Outreach in Houston can change votes.

    When I point out the fact that race played a significant role in the vote for Trump, that discussion is shut down. Instead we have a diversion that does not address the racial bias. Transgender bathrooms do not put people at risk of sexual assault. Automation, not immigrants, are the job threat. Crime is going down in most cities. These facts need to be discussed. We have seen outreach and education work on voters. It can work in the black community in Houston. Why do you object to educating white Trump supporters?

    It is true that arrogance and insults will not help get more voters to vote for Democratic candidates. But how much hatred of Liberals is based upon the certainty they display in their opinions? That quality must account for some measure of it. I suspect that it has more to do with the changes in society that have transpired because of the broad acceptance of Liberal practices and ideas. I don't know if that group of haters is interested in any ala carte menu of policies that might be offered to them. I agree that the Democratic Party should not apply ideological purity tests ala Gingrich Style to everyone but how far can the tolerance stretch? We will lose our base if we stray too far from the insistence upon equal rights and application of law. 

    Now many polls report that the swing voters who were in play in the last election don't hate Liberals but did not believe they would make things better for them. The Party is very divided on what will make things better. Those are the planks that need the most nails.

    As progressives, we should reach out to Trump supporters when possible.  Many will respond to a call for true economic justice – medicare for all, free or affordable public colleges and universities, a true middle-class jobs program – especially if they do not sense patronization or condescension on our part.  After all, a significant aspect of Trump’s appeal in the still depressed Midwest was his promise not to enter into the TPP and to abrogate previous trade deals which – whatever their benefits – have cost millions of Americans good-paying manufacturing jobs and exerted downward pressure on wages throughout the country.

    http://halginsberg.com/the-way-forward-for-progressives-in-trumps-wake/ (Nov. 24, 2016)

    Why gloss over studies that show that "cultural anxiety" played a major role in votes for Trump?


    "Cultural anxiety" is a cover for racism and bigotry.


    Trump has a commission that will "investigate" voter fraud this commission will find voter fraud where none exists. Voter fraud soothes the nerves of people with "cultural anxiety" but is a direct attack on minority communities. Progressives will have to take a side in the battle. Hiding behind "identity politics" will not work as cover.


    Was there glossing?

    Yep. There is major glossing. The title itself suggests that pointing out racial bias among Trump voters is demonstrating hatred. 

    I thought you were saying that my post was glossing over studies showing that cultural anxiety played a role in the 2016 Presidential election results.  I see you were referring to the title of Flavius's blog.  That said, I don't think the title "Hating 62 million people" glosses over the racism/sexism/homophobia/xenophobia that informed the decisions of many Trump voters.  I think the title means to suggest that among such a large group of voters there were many motivations and calculuses - not all of which are wholly "deplorable."  Moreover, the title suggests to me at least, that even among some of those who voted based on resentment or hatred of the "other," there is the possibility of redemption.

    Why is it that when I point out the need to address homophobia among black voters, there is no pushback? When I point out racism among Trump voters, I'm said to be calling everybody a racist. There seems to be a double standard.

    You wrote that Flavius's title,"Hating 62 million people", "suggests that pointing out racial bias among Trump voters is demonstrating hatred."  I read this as a claim that "racial bias" infects many, not all, Trump voters.

    In order to get to the homophobes in the black community, we have to point out to the entire black community that homosexuals are not the enemy to get to the target group. Attempts to suggest that we address racism among white Trump voters are met with resistance. We are supposed to pretend that the racism and white supremacy doesn't exist or we will offend someone. 

    I've only challenged you when you imply that ALL Trump voters are racist deplorables and Dems don't need to try to get back some of the voters who voted for Obama and then voted for Trump. I just can't call Obama voters racists, sorry, just doesn't make sense to me. It's posslble that certain of those people are haters of Afro-American culture and didn't see Obama as part of Afro-American culture and therefore felt comfortable voting for him. That's a whole nother thing. That's like hating conservative christians or hating elitist liberals or hating Irish Catholics.  But I define "racist" literally, as about the race of the person only, and not about acceptance of cultural tribes.

    I think it's important if and only if you care about the political results of your speech, to be careful and use qualifiers when you use the word racist, because it's such a loaded word. To use it inaccurately causes unnecessary negative feedback from those who feel mislabeled. I.E.: all Trump voters are racist.

    To be clear: yes, I consider people who would feel inspired to imitate a Ku Klax Klan rally to protest the removal of Confederate statues to be racists. There are certain dog whistles that have unmistakable meaning. I'm pretty damn sure that there isn't a single person who voted for Obama in those demonstrations. And that would be because: the color of his skin.

    There is homophobia among black voters. Past experience suggests that it can be modified with outreach. There is racism among Trump supporters. The racism outweighs their economic interests addressing the racism may produce converts to the economic plans favored by Democrats. You seem reluctant to address the issue. 

    Some Trump voters are undoubtedly racist. And Democrats will never get those votes.End of story. Is that good enough?

    P.S. And racist acts are against the law in this country. But racist hate without acting on it is permitted. You are allowed to hate whites, blacks, Asians or Jews. Or blue-eyed or gay for that matter, that's part of the whole free speech set up. Hate speech and private hate is allowed. So if you're going to be a political party that sells "love all your brothers and sisters," you're going to have a tough row to hoe. Until that particular Christian message seeps into enough of the country's soul. You've got to separate your Christian message loving from your political message, one's for church and pop culture and ones for the political campaign.

    I sensed that an argument was being made to tolerate racists and white nationalists.

    White voters concerned about economics voted Hillary.

    "Cultural anxiety" voters favored Trump.


    The Democrats have the folks who are responsive to an economic message.




    The objections to trade agreements may be voiced by both anti-GOP Trumpeters and the Sander's Left but there are still sharp divides on how and who should receive the "entitlements" you refer to and how economic prosperity is developed or not through the regulation of Capital.

    How do you know who will respond to a call for true economic justice? It seems to me that there are plenty of the America First crowd who want to kill NAFTA but still buy into supply-side economics.

    Sure.  These policies won't attract everybody but I believe they have broad-based support and would serve as an intra-class inter-race/gender/ethnicity unifying force.

    A recent survey from the Economist/YouGov found that a majority of Americans support “expanding Medicare to provide health insurance to every American.” Similarly, a poll from Morning Consult/Politico showed that a plurality of voters support “a single payer health care system, where all Americans would get their health insurance from one government plan.”


    Sixty-two percent of Americans said that they support making public college tuition free for anyone who wants to attend, according to a survey by Bankrate, which polled 1,000 people in late July. The overall margin of sampling error was plus or minus 4 percentage points.


    Sure, we surveyed 30 people per state where the avg population is 6 million, and this 200,000th of the population said...

    Can you point to any contradictory evidence or studies?

    The only other study I found on the topic of tuition-free public colleges is from Gallup and like the bankrate study was conducted last summer.  The Gallup survey found a bare plurality in favor of tuition-free schools.  What's interesting and instructive is that 1) the splits were mostly by income with Americans in households with less than $36K per annum strongly in favor, those between 36 and 90K split and those above 90K opposed, 2) 23% of Republicans favored tuition-free public colleges and universities.  This provides additional evidence in support of the proposition tht the way for Democrats to reach a significant percentage of Trump voters, without compromising on social justice, is to embrace economic populism.

    Trump voters come in all shapes and  sizes.* Many  are strongly liberal except for believing every embryo is a person , or that reducing  methane in the atmosphere  is a step on the Road to Serfdom,  or the Ferguson police were wrongly condemned,  or Mexicans are taking over in Silicon Valley , or the Jews have too much power  or the  Catholics, or that  all taxes are unjust, or just theirs.

    Many of course , at least for the length of the campaign  believed every word above. Including ¨if, and and but.¨ Some  only one . 

    But ¨twas enough, twill do. Look for me in the morning¨ and the exit polls will place my

    vote in Donald ś  column.

    Which one of their  votes  should we reject in 2018?

    Just asking.

    * but all count

    There are enough votes for victory if Democrats get third party people and people who stayed home. Trump has terrified these people. Instead you want to go after Trump voters. You want to attack Liberals who disagree with your POV. Trump has a steady 40% approval. You and others always quote Democratic economic plans that should appeal to some Trump voters. Trump voters rejected economic plans for Trump's nonsense. Trump voters are not rational. You are still waiting for Ivanka and Jared to change Trump. Good luck in your efforts.



    Yeah we´ve both stated our positions on this.

    Perhaps accusing people of hating Trump voters is not a good tactic. While polling can be faulty, it does help in pointing out trends. There is racial bias among Trump voters. There were race-based assaults at Trump rallies. Trump put a white supremacist in the White House. Trump put a man who tried to imprison associates of Martin Luther King Jr. In charge of the DOJ. Looking at Trump's actions and the actions of his supporters, you want to hide your head in the sand. Let us be clear, there is an active assault on voting rights that targets minority communities. This may not be important enough in the scheme of things for you to take note. There will be no ground swell of Trump voters voting to support voting rights. In fact, Trump voters will have the same influence on the Democrats as they had on the Republicans. They will force Democrats to take up the meme "identity politics" when they are asked to challenge voter suppression. Democrats will loose their souls trying to get some theoretical economic crumbs. Appeasement with Trump voters will be a disaster. I don't hate Trump voters, I know Trump voters.

    But you really really really don't appear to know the Trump voters who voted for Obama. Your comments like this make it seem that you are either in deep denial of their existence or you want to tar and feather and shame them with the racists who voted for Trump. President Obama didn't feel that way. Targeting those kind of purple district voters are precisely why Obama won. And not targeting them is why Dems have lost many other elections for decades. The Trump campaign very strategically targeted some of these people in just certain purple districts in order to get an electoral vote win. And Hillary lost some of them to Trump that Obama won for reasons people are still arguing about.

    I've seen this story my whole life about these kind of voters: Dems err in labelling all "Reaganite Dems" as lost cause racist right wingers and lose elections.

    Edit to add: spare me the rant on "Southern Strategy," I am not going to agree that it has much to do with today's electorate, it was a blunt instrument from different times. Reagan's appeal still applies though, very much so. Including the welfare queen stuff and denial that a lot of poor whites are as much or more so "welfare queens" as blacks are, but don't want to admit it. Then throw into our electorate increasing numbers of mixed race, mixed background growing in numbers all the time, who don't even know from any of this stuff and are open to totally new paradigms, not interested in old racial grievances and divides.

    p.s. Comes to mind that the Obama voters who voted for Trump are probably going to vote against him next time (if he's still in office.) That won't mean the Dem party has won them over. I'd venture a bet that they'd probably vote for Obama again if they could, I'd love to see someone poll them on it. Just to know if it was the worst populist stuff that drew them to Trump or something else. My intuition is that it's something else, something along the lines of not being seen as a party man/woman and Obama had that image for them, too. Growing numbers of people don't like either party, all the time. The platforms and images do not appeal and the willingness for bi-partisanship thing does.

    What do Trump and Obama have in common? Very, very little, but they both campaigned on change--which would appeal to disaffected voters unhappy with the status quo.

    yes could be that simple

    I was also thinking along the lines of the "let's try the other bums now" phenomenon of two-term presidents getting a slap in the face of an opposition Congress in their second terms or even in the mid terms of their first term. Though with the mid-term phenomenon, that is always a totally different more conservative set of voters, the traditional low turnout problem. Then there's that the turnout of presidential races are so personality-driven,  while many end up voting party line just because they haven't studied up and that's what their family always voted, that is countered by the independent minded that come out and vote for personality, they don't favor party loyalty, that's when you also get the more independents and swings.

    I really, really, really do know Obama-to-Trump voters. They were attracted by Trump's white exclusive message. They want immigrants out and Obamacare gone.


    Edit to add:

    Racial bias was front and center in the 2016 election


    Obama-to-Trump voters weren't the problem


    Interesting first link Rmrd. 7% of Obama voters flipping to Trump is actually much MORE than I had expected. I had heard of numbers around 3 million. this is more than 4 million. 

    Also, they sound like the kind of economic progressives one would expect:

    YouGov, a market-research and polling firm, provided me with data comparing Obama voters who went with Clinton this year to Obama voters who ended up voting for Trump. As the data show, these voters are quite similar to Trump on policy attitudes, particularly his signature issues like trade and immigration, though they were also sympathetic to progressive reforms like higher minimum wages and free college tuition. Only 35 percent of former Obama voters who went for Trump believe immigrants should be able to stay in the country and apply for citizenship, compared with 78 percent of Obama voters who support Clinton. However, Trump supporters support free college (48 percent in favor, 39 percent opposed and the rest were “not sure”) and a higher minimum wage (52 percent in favor, 37 percent opposed).

    Even though they seem rabidly anti-immigration on this survey, there is also the Atlantic's survey on which Trump voters seem more moderate:

    Contrary to popular narratives, only a small portion—just 27 percent—of white working-class voters said they favor a policy of identifying and deporting immigrants who are in the country illegally. 

    Not much on their attitude to civil rights and social justice issues. 

    Immigration policy is a notoriously wild card issue. People for tougher policy span the entire political rainbow and the same for the opposite. And there are the strongest feelings where there are the most immigrants, of course. (And the latter are not always urban districts, due to the tendency of immigrants from certain regions to go where their bretheren already are.)

    The author noted his number could be high.

    Obey, the 27% is the overall number. Trump voters were outliers

    The second factor was immigration. Contrary to popular narratives, only a small portion—just 27 percent—of white working-class voters said they favor a policy of identifying and deporting immigrants who are in the country illegally. Among the people who did share this belief, Trump was wildly popular: 87 percent of them supported the president in the 2016 election.

    You keep ignoring the bigotry

    Not ignoring. Just looking at the math. 

    Of course bigots will vote Trump, hence the 87% bigot Trump vote count. So let's define these hardline anti-immigrants as 'bigots' in this instance (quotation marks included just to make clear that there are other criteria for bigotry). Trump got 87% of bigoted WWC voters, who are 27% of WWC. So 23.5% of WWC are bigots who are also Trump voters. The same article says Trump got 64% of WWC votes total. So 23.5% being a little over a third of 64%, we get the result that a bit over a third of WWC Trump votes come down to bigotry in this sense. This leaves the other two thirds who might not be bigots. So roughly 16 million potential non-bigoted WWC Trump voters (based on the assumption the WWC are 1/3 of the voting public of 125 million , and 64% of WWC voted Trump).

    This means that, beyond the 4 million Obama-Trump voters we agree are are people who might flip back to democrat, there is another bit of math that suggests there may be up to 16 million just in the WWC who are (potentially, depending on how they view blacks and women and LGBTQ etc) not completely deplorable. 

    edited for clarity.

    None of this should be taken to ignore the fact that many of those 16 million are quite likely deplorable in some other way, and so out of reach for the Democratic party. But Clinton may have been overshooting in her estimate that half of Trump voters were to be labeled deplorable. And I find the debate based on someone's anecdotal experience with a brother in law's cousin in Kentucky tiresome. If you have more numbers, I'd be very interested to see them. 

    Considering the number of Trump-backers still backing him in polls after 120 days of glaring atrocities and abominations, I'd say Hillary distinctly undershot the number of deplorables. As Trump himself said, ""I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," One of the few times I believed him.

    I vehemently disagree that anti-illegal immigrant voters are the same group as classic white racists. If you believe that, you are only fooling yourself and screwing yourself.

    I'm not one of them, by the way. I'm in NYC, which has always favored both illegal and legal immigrants, both are part of the lifeblood of the city.

    But in places like California and Florida you can find lots of otherwise very liberal people and even lots of minorities who are strongly anti-illegal immigrant and even some who are anti more legal immigrants. It's all about government resources being strained, and the way local taxes play out, who ends up paying the bill for all those resources and who is using them.

    Lots of the wealthy GOP are not anti-illegal, they like to hire them as nannies and caretakers and gardeners, and maybe even work on installing their home computer system. Lots of businesses like them around because they work cheaper and supposedly will do work Americans won't etc.

    Former dagblog member Resistance was vehemently anti-illegal. For him it was about labor issues and enforcing protectionism, anti-free-trade, no free- trading of people either, outsourcing or bringing them in, he wanted jobs to go to citizens. Far from racist, he wanted to arm everyone with guns, including minorities, felt they wouldn't be so harassed by the evil cops if they had guns. Including everyone in Africa, he thought things would be going much better there if they had guns. Heck, he thought if everyone had guns, there wouldn't be much immigration anywhere, everyone would be happy where they were.

    I know more than a few Afro-Americans who are strongly anti-immigrant, it is about competing for employment for them. Heck in NYC, even we have that phenomenon. Certainly you see that in L.A., gangs have formed around the issue.

    I personally have relatives who were strongly attracted to Trump's campaign precisely because of his focus on illegal immigration and protectionism. They are not racist, they have a half African-American with an African-American husband and a legal African immigrant as part of the family. As the only New Yorker, I had to convince them of how stupid Trump was about other things because they were in danger of voting for him just because of how strongly they feel on this issue.

    You are not only fooling yourself by pasting this label of "racist" everywhere, you are alienating those who are reading your comments who might be receptive on the issue of Breitbart-style white racists feeling empowered by Trump.

    The alienation works both ways. I see a rejection of data and statements of opinion.

    Democrats will go after Trump voters no matter what I say here. Political opinions don't matter if voter suppression is in effect. You provide anecdotal evidence. I provided preliminary analysis looking at Obama-to-Trump voters. I have a black Republican friend who voted for Obama twice and vigorously supported Hillary. I cannot use him as an example of how the bulk of black Republicans responded to Trump. The polling I see points to racial bias in Trump voters including Obama-to-Trump voters. Cultural anxiety was more important than economics.

    The Presidential race was about race

    The Intercept


    The Nation


    Do you have any data that shows that Democrats can win over the Trump voters that you covet?

    I admit that I agree with Bill Mahrer's view that winning Trump voters with facts is a futile effort.


    Edit to add:

    Here is an article from Greg Sargent pointing out the lack of trust Obama-to-Trump voters have in Democratic economic policies. The articles notes the danger of too narrow a focus on winning back the Obama-to-Trump subset

    Cecil noted that winning back Obama-Trump voters would be key in 2018 to defending vulnerable Democratic senators and winning the many gubernatorial contests that are taking place in big swing states currently controlled by Republicans. But he also cautioned against too narrow a focus on those voters. He pointed out that motivating those Obama 2012 voters who sat out 2016 — and keeping Trump’s margin down among the college-educated whites who may be souring on him and are concentrated in many districts of the more vulnerable House Republicans — will also be imperatives.


    ​Democrats will go after your Obama-to-Trump voters, but they can't ignore the third party voters and those who stayed home in 2016. I remain skeptical of winning over people who voted for Trump despite his open call to racism and bigotry. I don't trust them.



    For the umpteenth time, I think the important issue for the Democratic party to understand and discuss is the Trump voters who also voted for Obama, not any of the others.

    Especially given that Hillary won the majority vote. The problem is the loss of a very small number of voters in "purple" areas, as it often has been. Whatever Hillary did, she managed to get a lot of them, but not enough in enough of the right places. If Dems label them racists and say they don't want them, you will go backwards and it will be worse results than Hillary, Dems will stay in the desert for years like they have in the past.

    Note: just to be fair, I was editing this comment and adding more after rmrd replied, but don't know what the previous version had and didn't have.

    See the Edit to add above. The Greg Sargent article suggests a too narrow focus on that subset could be a disaster.

    Sorry, AA, but this comes across as naive. Republicans targeted black voters in a huge way across the country, taking advantage of the Supreme Court knocking down the Voting Rights Act and various paranoia cant from Hans von Spakovsky to unleash a set of laws designed to prevent blacks from voting. So obviously draconian that the Supreme Court had no trouble knocking down North Carolina's attempt, but in many other locations it's been successful or a wearying fight.

    Trump and GOP supporters either know this quite well or their ignorance to well-publicized news is appalling. It was a major issue in flipping the 2000 election, and it's been a gold mine since - blacks vote Democrat, so every black denied is 1 less vote needed for Republicans. The Southern Strategy didn't die with Reagan - it's gone nationwide.

    It's not acceptable for blacks to protest excessive violence towards them - that's offensive to police and the troops and our great institution of football.

    I'm really fed up with the arguments about how Hillary should have won over those however many Obama voters that voted for Trump. Those black voters who were kept from voting through intimidation, being pushed off the rolls through arrest trickery or various address verification or new IDs that are hard to get in many areas, held up by long lines and lack of ballots/resources/etc in areas where minorities live - they should have been allowed and ENCOURAGED to vote freely in any sane and non-racist society, and instead we're supposed to take their bullshit seriously up to the highest judicial level when they can't show any examples of illegal voting or damage to the system but plenty of evidence has been displayed as to how all these new laws across what, 17+ states, will prevent minorities from voting in huge numbers.

    The Communists here used to *FORCE* people to vote as a sign that their workers' paradise was working and beloved by all. We have an amusing story of a local village idiot they'd chase across the field so they could reach their 100% participation goal. Sure it was a sham, but our system actively and openly prohibits citizens from voting, and that might as well be written into their platform. But hey, they're not racists, they're just keeping blacks from voting for secular political goals I suppose. Color me unimpressed.

    Apples and oranges. The Republican party did that. Not independents who stupidly voted for Trump after they voted for Obama.

    If you think labeling independent voters racists because they don't pay attention to voting rights issues news like Afro-Americans do, will get the Democratic party somewhere, I just don't agree.

    In a presidential race especially, you're not dealing with news junkies.

    As for the immigration issue, another part of the "it's complicated" thing:


    Excuse me if I don't buy into this vast barrel of unaligned Independent voters waiting for reason to sway their vote. They're largely the same usual suspects, leaning left or right, voting for the same parties in every election. I'd say Obama was exceptional for a number of well-documented obvious reasons, so got some exceptional turnout and crossover - even my father voted for him at least once, and at that point somewhere in Conservative heaven a gargoyle lost its wings.

    so how can they be "racist"? Hello: Obama has black skin!

    Huh? In the same way as "some of my best friends are black" and "but you're not one of those types of Negros" or being friendly to the black car mechanic while voting for the guy who's promised to keep blacks from voting and kick all those ne'er-do-well blacks off their free health care and keep them from using up our emergency rooms and what-not.

    And people in their cars with windows rolled up can easily run you over out of straight callousness, while if they were talking to you face to face, they might be quite civilized.

    Yes, they may have moments when they're not as deplorable and racist and inhumane - chalk that up to modern progress, eh?

    One shouldn't use racism to describe people who hate because of tribal, cultura or class differences. Can't we laud where there is progress if some people's "best friends are black", that they no longer judge people by the color of their skin but like, maybe they don't like gangsta culture? Can we leave the word "racist" to label people who are actually racist? Cause that's the way a lot of people take it! And if they're called racist and they don't actually judge people by the color of their skin, they tend to take it badly and not think well of the person (or party) labeling them that way.

    I'm done with this issue after this. I agree that this recent SNL sketch with Tom Hanks as a Trump supporter playing on "Black Jeopardy" was brilliant:


    The Dems should hire those writers, they "get" the whole situation.


    AA, an article from the Nation goes into details about the Obama-Trump voter and how racial anxiety played a role in the support for Trump. The race issue played a larger role for Republican Obama-Trump voters than it did for Democrats who made the switch.


    The CCAP data indicate that 9 percent of Obama 2012 voters switched to Trump in 2016, and about 5 percent of Romney 2012 voters defected from Trump by voting for Hillary Clinton, and 6 percent voted for another candidate. Perceiving growing racial diversity as a threat strongly predicts Obama to Trump vote switchers, and more positive attitudes towards diversity predict the probability that a Romney 2012 voter would defect from the Republican nominee in 2016.

    Race impacted the 2016 vote.

    "Among whites with the most positive views of rising diversity, the model predicts a less than 2 percent chance of an Obama voter’s voting for Trump. This compares to a 50 percent chance of voting for Trump among whites with the most negative views of rising diversity. Moreover, our analysis indicates that these attitudes had a stronger effect on vote switchers than any other variable, including racial resentment and attitudes towards immigration."


    Here's what happens when white people start messing with black people's stuff ;-)

    (I think Dizzy credited some of this Scottish influence from singing along the Carolina shoreline or isles at one point, but don't think even he would have imagined...)




    Now that's funny.

    Trump is in the process of imploding. Today NYT report about a memo is earth-shattering.

    "Many  are strongly liberal except for believing every embryo is a person , AND that reducing  methane in the atmosphere  is a step on the Road to Serfdom,  AND the Ferguson police were wrongly condemned,  AND Mexicans are taking over in Silicon Valley , AND the Jews have too much power  AND the  Catholics, AND that  all taxes are unjust, AT LEAST just theirs." - fixed that for you.

    Haven't seen any proof of the mythical single-issue Trump voter wildebeest. Perhaps 1 or 2 in the wild like that rhino that's almost extinct, but certainly no large herds.

    I have proof of the allegedly "mythical single-issue Trump voter wildebeest".  A mixed race (African-American/white) teacher at the school where my wife also teaches told her that she  voted for Trump because she's a Christian and he's pro-life.

    Terminology alert:

    1) there are many Christians who consider themselves pro-life and still avoid unnecessary abortions and don't condemn everyone who's had an abortion or want to take rights/permissions away at least in more reasonable situations.

    2) it would be hard to consider the areligious egoist-only Trump pro-life or consistent in framing of any sort

    3) besides foolishly voting Trump as a "pro-life" candidate, is she 

    a) concerned about reducing  methane in the atmosphere (i.e. believes in manmade global warming)

    b) takes the side of Blue Lives Matter

    c) believes Mexicans are taking over Silicon Valley

    d) believes Jews have too much power

    e) thinks all/almost all taxes are unjust (at least hers)


    4) if answer to most of 3 is yes, are there more than 1 or 2 of these in the wild to observe?

    “After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley’s ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, ‘I refute it thus.'”

    Perhaps not true in Europe but round here  right to life , or ¨is it good for the jews¨ wildebeests are sufficiently prevalent their existence can be proved  without  breaking a single toe.

    As with  single issue PTA moms..

    And herds of global warming EPAbeestes  are restively testing their fences.   .  


    Latest Comments