How Should The Democratic Party Win Back Less Educated Whites?

Millions also stayed home because they disliked both major party candidates. 25% of all Americans disliked both candidates and wanted neither to become their next president. This included 54% of all independents, the non-partisan and non-party affiliated.

http://news.gallup.com/opinion/poll...mericans-dislike-presidential-candidates.aspx

On election day of 2016 70% of independents disliked or had a negative view of Hillary Clinton vs. 57% for Trump. Questions 10 and 11.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

This is probably the main reason Trump won the non-affiliated vote 46-42 over Hillary with 12% voting third party. Independents disliked Clinton more than they disliked Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

You almost had to be a die hard Democrat to like Hillary and a die hard Republican to like Trump. Fact is on election day Trump was seen favorably by only 36% of all Americans, Clinton by 38%. They set the record for the lowest approval rating of any major party candidates going back to FDR when Gallup and Pew Research started keeping track of these things. The previous lowest was set by Barry Goldwater at 43% in 1964 and G.H.W. Bush was next at 46% in 1992. No other major party candidate ever had a favorable rating of 50% or below other than those for. People voted for the candidate they least wanted to lose, not for the candidate they wanted to win.

This is why I call 2016 the anti election. Neither candidate was wanted except by their avid supporters. Still Hillary should have won and would have if she hadn't been so lazy and ran such a ho hum inept campaign. She has no one to blame but herself.

 

That's debatable. There are those who think if Obama had left the recession alone, done nothing that it would have bottomed out a lot quicker and a more robust recovery would have taken place. But that is for the economist to argue over. I'm no financial guru so one can either believe the above or that he saved us from a depression as you stated.

All I know is he ran up 10 trillion in debt which is unforgivable. I also know Obama couldn't do it alone, over the last six years he had a Republican congress and they also had to agree to run up that debt by 10 trillion. Shame on both of them. No thought give by either party to this nation's future or the young and unborn who will have to bear that burden.

 

No reputable economist says that. When he inherited the economy 700,000 jobs were being lost every month. It just kills you to give him credit. If you were worried about deficit which the Republicans were so concerned about, you do realize that Trump is going to run it way up

 

I realize that. The thing is do you realize it takes two to tango? Democrats complain about Reagan tripling the debt. That he did. With Tip O'Neal's and the democratic house's help. Same with Bush the elder as the democrats controlled both chambers of congress. What he rolled up reflected on both parties, a Republican president and a Democratic controlled congress. same with Bill Clinton his last six years and so on.

Any president can sign a budget or spend money unless the congress authorizes it. The house must first write and pass the spending bills followed by senate approval and passage. Only then can any president sign or veto the bill. It takes both. I don't blame Obama by himself, he had a Republican Congress his last six years. The first two years rested on Obama's and the Democratic congress's shoulder. His next four years on Obama, the Republican House and the Democratic Senate and his last two years on Obama and the Republican controlled congress. I blame both parties.

Neither party would recognize fiscal responsibility if it hit them right between the eyes. We have one party who wants to raise taxes and spend like crazy, we have the other party who wants to cut taxes and spend crazy. Two peas in a pod really. The rhetoric is polar opposite, but the actions of both, the same. Spend, spend, spend, and worry about kids, grand kids and the unborn, did I say worry about kids, grand kids and the unborn. I made a mistake, none of them are worried about them, Neither party gives a darn about the future, only today.

 

It is worth noting that the BLOTUS only managed a razor thin EC college win by a total on 70k spread across 3 states which is less than 25k per state. Hillary won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes.

The BLOTUS's win was an ABERRATION rather than an indication of a fundamental problem within the Dem aligned electorate. Take away the voter suppression of minorities in those 3 states and Hillary would definitely have won IMO.

 

St Reagan had charisma, Bill Clinton had charisma, Obama had charisma!

The BLOTUS had LCD mob appeal. That is evidenced by the fact that he LOST the popular vote.

Yes, the BLOTUS put on a better show but that is what con artists are all about. He does not have charisma, he just knows how to appeal to the lowest common denominator and sell them his load of bovine excrement.

 

It wasn't voter suppression. Even a black Democratic congresswoman from Pennsylvania stated that blacks didn't turn out. That Hillary didn't excite them like Obama did. A lot of them stayed home, at least according to her. In the states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania the Sanders supporters was a huge factor. Being angry at the DNC and Democratic state party leaders for jury rigging the primaries in Hillary's favor. A lot stayed home, those who did vote although going to Clinton when to her by a much smaller number. You can compare the vote totals, Democratic base vote 89% Clinton 8% Trump. Sanders supporters, 73% Clinton,12% Trump and 15% third party.

http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-trump-2016-election-654320

The above article explains it all. Then too while Trump was addressing the fears of the middle class worker, their worries Hillary was just promising to be an Obama third term and basically ignored those three states while Trump concentrated on them. Example, Wisconsin, Trump five campaign visits/stops, Hillary none, zero, nadda. Michigan, Trump six campaign visist/stops, Hillary one. Pennsylvania was closer 8-5 in favor of Trump. Even in electoral rich Florida, Hillary let Trump outwork and out campaign her there too, 13 campaign visits/stops for Trump, 8 for Hillary. In fact that was the election as a whole. From 1 Sep to 8 Nov 2016 Trump made 116 campaign visits/stops to Hillary's 71. Trump never took a day off, Hillary several. She just let Trump outwork and out campaign her and that let the aberration you talked about take place. Hillary's fault and only she is to blame. I know of no other Democratic candidate that would have let her or his opponent both out work and out campaign them like she did. Laziness? Perhaps.

Even so, as you pointed out Hillary did win the popular vote. She should of won easily, if not for her laziness. I will add the very ho hum campaign with lacked spark and energy along with an inept campaign. The stars, moon, the planets all had to align just right, exactly right for Trump to win, they did so with Hillary's help.

 

I agree that Hillary failed to campaign as hard as the BLOTUS but those 3 states had all undergone serious minority voter suppression. That is undeniable fact.

https://www.thenation.com/article/w...w-suppressed-200000-votes-trump-won-by-23000/

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-...asive-decline-in-2016-minority-voter-turnout/

 

Call it what you like. Trump inspired his supporters, gave them energy and enthusiasm. Hillary didn't. she was the dour old woman, the wet mop. Clinton had a lot more supporters, just that they weren't that gung ho. Trump inspired his supporters to where they would go to the four corners of the earth for him. There was a distinct energy level difference.

It's hard for Clinton supporters to admit that. but it was there. If the Democrats had the energy level they have now trying to destroy and bring down Trump during Clinton's campaign, she would be sitting in the white house today. The democrats managed to nominate about the only Democrat, alive or dead, that could possibly lose to Trump.

Reagan, Bill Clinton, Obama inspired and energyzed. Trump did too. Hillary didn't. The problem with 2016 was it was an election in which around 60% of Americans didn't want Trump and 60% didn't want Clinton as seen by their favorable numbers of 36% and 38% along with their dislike numbers of 60% and 58%. Strange thing about those numbers, a two point difference and Clinton won the popular vote by 2 points. Fact is most Americans wanted neither.

Candidates matter. Any other Democratic candidate would have won going away. It wouldn't have been close. Wrong candidate.

 

The bottom line is who can put on a better show..who is a better snake oil salesperson

 

He is only repulsive to those brought up with any moral standards whatsoever.

 

We shall see. It is becoming increasing clear that the less educated less economically sucessful white voters are seeing no improvements to their life as a result of the Trump election.

 

Pretty much. Presidential election is a beauty contest, a popularity contest. We know from history that 90% of those who call themselves Republicans will vote for the Republican candidate and 90% of Democrats for the Democratic candidate. For those partisans, it isn't about who is the better candidate or who can do the better job, it is all about the R and the D.

For the rest of us, third party, independents, non-affiliated, it is a popularity contest. Most independents pay little to no attention to the goings on in Washington until close to the election. Each decides whom they will vote for for a bunch of different reasons. A lot of these latter folks decide upon whom had the better slogan, who said what they wanted to hear, even who looked more presidential. (My wife's reason) Few actually check out the candidates, they decide whom they will vote for on what ever whim suits their fancy.

Actually their reasons, the independents may actually be more valid than those who call themselves Reps and Dems. At least they weren't brainwashed by a political party. Then too, think about it, If you let the R or the D decide whom you vote for. The odds are half the time your voting for the best candidate, half the time for the worst candidate. They don't check out qualifications, experience, credentials either, they just go by the R and the D.

In the end, a beauty contest, popularity contest, whom is the better snake oil salesman, all apply.

 

Always a problem for Dems.


Don't have an investigation.


Hope & change is still a winner.


Dems need a squeaky clean candidate.

 

What I find interesting in what you posted is 61% of all Americans thought Hillary Clinton wasn’t an honest or trustworthy candidate, 64% thought the same of Trump. Which goes along with a Gallup poll showing 25% of all Americans disliked both major party candidates. That included 54% of all independents. One had to be either a Democratic avid Clinton supporter or a Republican avid Trump supporter to like or want either one. Most Americans didn’t want neither one to become the next president. That tells me there is something dreadfully wrong with how we choose our candidates. We can no longer trust either major party to pick a candidate acceptable to America as a whole.


As for white born again Christians, what do you expect. The Democratic Party is out to destroy their faith. To do away with their religion. If you look further into the CNN exit polls one find Trump won among those who attended religious services weekly or month regardless of race or religion. Clinton won the group who attends only a few times a year or never. Again showing that regardless of race, if one is religious, one votes Republican even if that candidate is Trump. At least Trump with all his flaws and immorality isn’t trying to do away with their religion.


It’s also interesting that Trump not only won the protestant vote, but he also won the catholic vote which hasn’t happened much in the past. Catholics used to be heavily democratic, perhaps they don’t want their religion destroyed either. Mormons and other Christians also went for Trump. The only religious group Clinton won was the Jewish vote.

 

True, so true. But for the Trumpers in the next election, they are stuck. The Dems need a clean likable candidate. It's just how it works.

Actually, I'm not sure how much is religion (some of course) and how much is racial bias.

Edit: Sorry I missed it.
I can't find where the religion vs race chart is.

 

There's plenty of clean, likable democrats. The problem may be that they can't win the nomination. The Democratic Party has fallen a long way since when they were known as the big tent party. The Democratic Party average around 45% of the total electorate from FDR to Reagan before they went whole hog progressive discarding their moderate and conservative wings. Take a look.

http://www.people-press.org/interactives/party-id-trend/

Being the big tent party with no litmus tests allowed the Democrats to control the House for 58 out of 62 years, 1933-1994. You'll notice a couple of years where the Democrats had over 50% of the total electorate identifying with them. Today, Gallup puts those who identify with the democratic party at 29%. That's quite a come down. Where are they actually liked? The Northeast, west coast and a couple of island states around the great lakes. It's almost like the democrats told middle America where to go. Luckily for them, the GOP during all this time has been viewed worst and has been the smaller of the two parties.

CNN didn't break it down via race and religion. What they did do was group everyone together. Hence my statement, regardless of race. Hence Trump won protestant 59-36, Catholics 50-46, Mormon 56-28, other Christian religions 54-43. Clinton the Jewish vote 71-23. Right below that is how often does one go to church.

 

Yes, and Clinton was one of them. Saying otherwise is pushing the dishonest GOP/media propaganda that Clinton was corrupt and unlikable.

Also, saying that any liberal Democrat is by definition not clean and likeable is right out of the GOP "all liberals are evil" playbook. You seem to rely on it a lot, for an "independent".

It's naive to think any other candidate wouldn't have been attacked just as viciously by the GOP/media sleaze machine. Sanders? They would have ripped him apart as a communist and a rich hypocrite with a corrupt wife who was raking in the big bucks from the establishment. As he didn't win, they found it convenient to keep up the "St. Bernie who that corrupt Hillary and the DNC rigged things against" fable.

Which "litmus tests" do you think the Democrats have, and why are they bad? The only one I can think of is "No white supremacists", and that's a good litmus test. On any other issue, you can find Democrats all across the spectrum. In contrast, the Republicans have a whole stable of absolute litmus tests. The Democrats are far more of a big tent than Republicans. The old big tent included the Dixiecrat racists. Democrats aren't ever getting them back, and shouldn't try. Rejecting that crowd wins votes in the long run, and it's the moral thing to do.

"Democrats are out of touch" GOP spin.

"Democrats hate middle America" GOP spin.

And your "The Democrats are out to destroy their faith" might have come right from the mouth of Trump. For an independent, you sure do love GOP spin.

Being proud liberals is the way for Democrats to win elections. Being Republican-lite is how Democrats lose elections. Thus, you advocate the latter, supposedly for the benefit of the Democrats. No thanks, Democrats have no interest in such concern trolling.

 

I think all you have to do is look at the numbers in regard to Hillary as to how most Americans felt about her. Then again, look at the numbers as to party affiliation over the years to see how far the democrats have dropped. When the Democrats was the big tent party, which included liberals, moderates, conservatives, as I stated, they averaged 45% of the electorate from FDR to Reagan which topped 50% in 1961 and 1964 when 51% of the total electorate identified themselves as Democrats. Today only 29% do.

As for Hillary, most Americans disliked her as much as they disliked Trump. take a look at the poll taken election day 2016.
59% of All Americans viewed Hillary Clinton as dishonest and not Trustworthy, 72% of independents viewed her as dishonest and not trustworthy, question 27
Donald Trump, 55% of all Americans viewed him as dishonest and not trustworthy which included 50% of independents. Notice how the non-partisan, independents viewed the two candidates. To them Trump was the more honest one. question 31.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

Then go to questions 18 and 19. 9% of independents were enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton vs. 23% of the non-affiliated for Trump. I like using independent figures as those aren't as partisan or influenced by the propaganda of both major parties. They aren't mind numbed robots for either party or either major party candidate.

How did America view the two major party candidates, questions 10 and 11. 56% of all Americans had a negative view or looked upon Clinton unfavorably vs 60% for Trump. But the non-partisan independents, 70% of them had a negative view of Hillary Clinton which included 57% very unfavorable or very negative view of her. 57% of independents viewed Trump negatively which included 46% of indies who viewed him very negative or very unfavorable.

I expect Democrats to back their candidate and Republicans to back theirs. That both parties for the most part view their candidates better than sex and peanut butter. Independent which don't have those very dark red or very dark blue colored glasses on I think gives us a better picture, a clearer picture on the proper perspectives of the two candidates. They haven't been indoctrinated into the parties mind frame.

 

Maybe we should compare polls since both are CNN. Mine looks different.
https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/national/president

 

I see the difference. Yours is before the election, mine is exit polls.
Might be interesting to compare, because the differences probably didn't vote.

 

Mine was a yougov poll taken on 7 Nov the day prior to the election. CNN had exit polls after the election. I use both. CNN basically tells you how people voted, YouGov how they felt.

 

You're probably right. Those not voting is interesting looking at the numbers. From 1-6 Nov 2016 Gallup puts party affiliation at 27% Republican, 31% Democrat and 36% independent. Looking at CNN which give the percentages of each group under the groups name, the electorate of those who voted was 33% Republican, 36% Democrat and 31% independent. Which means a lot of independents who were answering the questions didn't bother to vote. So the Republicans and Democrats rose significantly to a larger percentage than what they actually make up of the total electorate. This isn't surprising since 54% of all independents told Gallup they disliked or viewed both candidates, both Trump and Hillary unfavorably.

http://news.gallup.com/opinion/poll...mericans-dislike-presidential-candidates.aspx

Scroll down to opinions of Trump and Clinton by subgroups.

Another fact is 12% of independents voted third party whether than choose between Trump and Clinton they were so disgusted with both. It's no wonder quite a lot of independents would choose not to vote dropping their total of the electorate from 36% down to 31% who actually voted. 4% of Republicans and 3% of democrats voted third party vs. 12% for independents.

Another interesting stat was 6% voted third party in 2016, 1.5% in 2012, 1.2% in 2008 and 1.0% in 2004. But in 2012, 2008 and 2004 both major party candidates had favorables above 50% instead of 38% and 36% in 2016. Comparison of those by year who voted third party.
2016 Rep 4%, Dem 3%, Ind 12%
2012 Rep 1%, Dem 1%, Ind 5%
2008 Rep 1%, Dem 1%, Ind 4%
2004 Rep 1%, Dem 0%, Ind 2%

In 2004, I'm sure some democrats voted third party, but was below the 0.5% cut off as Roper rounds the numbers to an even percentage.

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/presidential-elections/2016election/

The thing is that a majority of Americans were dissatisfied with both major party nominees. It was a hold your nose election and vote for the candidate you least wanted to lose. Not for the one you wanted to win, but the one you least wanted to lose.

 

In the end, after the primaries were over, we were left with but two viable candidates in the general election along with a number of independents many who were only on a few States ballots.
As often the case, voters faced several choices, to cast a vote for a candidate, against a candidate, against all the candidates.
Votes cast for other than the Democrat or Republican candidate obviously were not going to result in a third party candidate winning the election and only displayed a lack of support for both the Democrat and the Republican candidate. Votes cast for the Democrat or Republican candidate were a combination of votes for that candidate and perhaps more importantly for some, votes against the other candidate.
Hard line Democrats probably voted FOR Clinton while hard line Republicans probably voted for Trump while the remainder of voters were voting against either Trump, Clinton, or both if they voted for a third party candidate while a great many stayed home.
Voters have little, if any, voice on real issues only on the direction, Left, Right, Liberal, Conservative, etc. that the elected Representatives will pursue for or against them. As such, most vote for the candidates who will inflict the least harm upon them or the most benefits if they are maintained by government.

 

I like the synopsis. The anti-candidate vote was a big factor in 2016. More so than any other election than perhaps 1964.

Breakdown of the for and anti-votes via the CNN exit polling of

2016 results popular vote Clinton 48% Trump 46%, third party 6%.

Opinions of candidates

Strongly Favor 41% of the total vote, Clinton 53%, Trump 41 other 6%

Favor with reservations 32% of the total vote, Clinton 49%, Trump 48%, other 3%

Disliked opponent 25% of the total vote, Clinton 39%, Trump 50%, other 11%


With the above numbers we can figure out the percentage of Clinton’s and Trump vote share which fell into each category.

Strongly favor, Clinton 21.7% of her 48%, Trump 16.8% of his 46%

Favor with reservations, Clinton 15.7% of her 48%, Trump 15.4% of his 46%

Disliked opponent, Clinton 9.8% of her 48% who voted for her because they disliked Trump, 12.5% of his 46% who voted for him because they disliked Clinton.


This accounts for 47.2% of Clinton’s 48% of the vote and 44.7% of Trump’s 46%. Since 2% of the respondents reason wasn’t one of these three, so the vote total for Clinton and Trump won’t add up to exactly what they received. The other category is basically third party voters or those who refused to answer. Even so, we can see that 28% of Trump’s votes were anti-Clinton voters, not necessarily for him, but against Clinton. 72% of his voters either voted for him because they strongly favored him or favored him with reservations. 21% of Hillary’s total of 48% were anti-Trump voters, not necessarily for her, but against Trump.


I think this exercise proves Trump won on the backs of the anti-Clinton vote and not on the Pro-Trump vote. This is especially true when it came to the independent vote which Trump won 46-42 over Clinton. Independents were much more anti-Clinton than anti-Trump. The Anti vote for 2012 at 25% of all votes cast more than doubled the anti votes of 2012 which was 11% of the total electorate. In 2012 people were voting for a candidate, in 2016, they were voting against a candidate or both as seen in the 6% who voted third party against both major party candidates vs. 1.5% in 2012.


https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls