Why did Trump win? New research by Democrats offers a worrisome answer

An interesting piece from research being conducted by Democrats on their 2016 loss, and what it means for the party and the future.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...rs-a-worrisome-answer/?utm_term=.52e76a3c881a

They surveyed, and conducted focus groups with, people who voted for Obama in 2012, but voted for Trump in 2016.

The key points, with some details:

So they are people who are stagnating economically, and don't think Democrats are responsive to their problems.

Some of the comments about Democrats were pretty harsh:

Some of this dissatisfaction appears to be specific to both Clinton and Trump. She represented the failed status quo to many of these voters, and while they don't like the GOP much, either, Trump appeared to be free from much of that taint.

One takeaway from this is strictly tactical: The Democrats need to do a better job of communicating how Democratic policies are people-friendly, and tie Trump to unpopular GOP policies.

But the other is that there are large groups of people who are not "winning", and haven't seen either party offering them much help in the past. It is highly unlikely that Trump will change that, given his incompetence and policy proposals. But somebody has to.

My wife and I were discussing this yesterday, and came up with a two-pronged idea:

1. In partnership with the states, establish regional comissions. They focus on areas of economic stagnation, but in the context of the region as a whole. They go and talk with the people in the region to get their input. Then they try to come up with a REGIONAL economic-development plan that the locals will support.
2. Pair it with an infrastructure and job-training fund. Make it a requirement that the projects must be targeted toward helping economically neglected areas, not just divvied up by the political power of a region's Congressional representatives, or the patronage desires of state leadership.

Do that, and hopefully people could see a direct correlation between "they're listening to me" and "they're doing something about it." And it's not just some pork-barrel project that provides a temporary boost but ultimately doesn't change the trajectory of the region. It's stuff that makes a difference.

But SOMETHING has to be done to help these areas. The free market isn't getting it done, nor is current government policy. Maybe there are some areas that just don't make economic sense anymore, and the ultimate answer is that people should leave and go elsewhere. But that's the point of the regional assessment: to see what can help the people in economically distressed areas, whether that is redeveloping the local economy or encouraging/helping people to move to a place where there are jobs and infrastructure.

 

Good article, I hope the Democrats pay attention to the message. One likely thing, the anti-Clinton voters will likely see the economic situation continue under Trump.

 

Great thread raytri.

IMO, Clinton offered more of the same and was viewed as completely corrupt. Trump offered change and a chance to move the country forward at a better pace. I also think a lot of people voted for Trump because of her "deplorables" comment and they wanted to shove it in her face.

 

The problem with America is how fake it has become. You're only allowed to comment on outcomes, not the genuine causes, as that would hurt feelings.

I mean seriously? The democrats back a side that pushes white people are evil, men are evil, breast feeding and genders aren't natural, but 2 guys humping, or thinking they're women, is.

Give it the **** up.

The problem with America is the level of BS walks hand-in-hand with the level of participation of females in key areas of control and they have got to be kicked the hell out of the equation.

 

Thanks. I lean left, but I don't believe in ignoring hard truths.

Yes, I think that was a widespread perception. Even though I disagree with the "completely corrupt" description, there were plenty of unforced errors on her part in terms of transparency and questionable appearances.

I think it is obvious that Trump lied out his ass and promised people unicorns and rainbows, with no idea or intention of actually delivering. I think people voted for him because they WANTED to believe him, even though they knew deep down he was lying. And because they felt that any change was better than no change. He offered just enough plausibility ("I'm a successful billionaire who gets things done!") for people to pull the lever for him.

I don't know. That's a popular partisan point, and it certainly wasn't the smartest thing to say. But given that she was referring to the alt-right and other racists, it would only motivate people to "shove it in her face" if they a) self-identified as a racist or b) had been misled about what she was saying.

 

So, you wrote your comments from a perspective that Democratic policies are just not being marketed very well at this point, and if they were, people would willingly embrace them overwhelmingly.
About a week ago, the Washington Post published the results of a poll that indicated that about 67% of the voting age population perceives that the Democratic Party is headed in the wrong direction.
So, this polling result directly challenges the notion that the average voter perceives that the, Progressive Movement," is really good for the average citizen and whether the Democratic Party, and the DNC in particular, has any real motivation to fix things.

Your comment about, "But somebody has to," probably resembled the thoughts of many voters last November.
While you obviously have no confidence in Trump to, "fix things," many voters, especially in the rust belt where folks evidently identified their own regional impact perspective, figured out that the outsider simply communicated a better vision.

At the point where I identified how Trump was utilizing a three point Clausewitz political model to roll out his campaign, I pretty much knew that he had a very good chance to win.
The Democrats and the media never knew what him them and apparently still don't understand why Trump won. This study doesn't even touch on the basics of why Trump was able to win much of the upper Midwest.

It will now come down to the actual results that Trump and the Republican Congress will produce.
They are putting their policies of lower taxes and less regulation into place.

 

Um, that's not true at all. I pointed out that there is a tactical takeaway, yes. But I actually fear that is the ONLY lesson Democrats will learn. Which is why I went on to propose something more than that.

Why do people think the party is headed in the wrong direction? That's the important thing. Is it based on actually understanding what the Democrats stand for, and opposing it? Is it based on misinformation? Is saying you're dissatisfied with the direction simply a proxy for what's really bothering you? And how strongly do they feel that?

It's like polls that showed a majority opposed Obamacare. That majority included both people who wanted to see Obamacare repealed, and those who didn't think Obamacare went far enough. WHY people say something is often more important than the actual words.

I said repeatedly through this election that I understood not being thrilled with Clinton. But Trump is a huckster who was obviously saying whatever he thought people wanted to hear. It was rainbows and unicorns, not a serious, reality-based platform. If people honestly bought his "vision", rather than simply not liking Clinton or hungering for change at any price, then I fear for the future of the country.

Please elaborate.

Um, not yet, they're not. Name one such meaningful policy they have put in place.

And then we can discuss whether it makes any sense.

 

The Democrats need to DO something positive for a change, especially for the working class people (the vast majority of us) whom they claim to represent. Too much BS about gay rights, too much failure a la 0bamacare and refusing to acknowledge that it's a failure more than a success by placing heavy burdens on employers, employees and self-employed people alike without offering anything appreciable in return. And then, to top it off, we get Crooked Hillary over a real and honest progressive like Bernie Sanders, a woman who laughed about Gaddafi's death and who lied no less readily than Agent Orange about herself and past events.

Those who voted Trump to keep her out are still hopelessly locked within the two-party system's "spoiler" mentality, the one which has them voting only for one of the two since they believe that "everyone else" will be voting for one of the two. It's a self-fullfilling prophecy, unfortunately. Those who are concerned about the economic situation have no choice, no good alternative. Trump appeared to be one based on his campaign rhetoric and may yet do something in this regard, though he is clearly not effective as POTUS so far. He is unable to do more than sign EOs.

I'd like to know what your "regional commissions" (oh boy, more bureaucrats!) are going to do. I don't think they will have much power, considering what is happening to jobs in this country (they're moving overseas!). Not everyone is able or willing to be a plumber or fix telephone lines, and of course there are only so many openings for such businesses and job positions. Our economy continues to shift toward service and away from production and manufacturing, and no commission is going to change that short of altering the overall economic/business situation considerably.

 

Hey look, another lie from the troll I've already asked to leave.

This isn't about politics. I couldn't care less if these people are Democrats or not. It's about "how can we craft policies that help people who are hurting?" Ideally, if we do that right, not only do we help the country, but those people will think favorably of Democrats and start joining/voting Democrat.

But wanting to help people regardless of their political orientation is not "ruling". FFS.

Seriously, go troll somewhere else. Stop making this thread stupider.

 

If they give that up, they have nothing else to run on.

They'll never give it up, and as a result, they'll become more and more left leaning.

 

Too funny, and very true.

There was a lib on Fox the other night saying breast feeding isn't natural. But two guys humping is natural?

The leftist world is in a parallel universe where right is wrong, wrong is right, up is down, and down is up.

 

That was a pretty astute observation, that there's a tendency to assume that the real problem is that hey, we're just not communicating our great message well, we need to do better. But that's true for the Republicans too, and they had a mule kick to head with the nomination of Trump, who ran against a lot of standard GOP fair, like "free" trade.

 

What Democrats need to do a better job of is listening, not talking.

During the Obama years, the standard-issue excuse for the negative public response to the Democrats' poor and failed policy initiatives was "we didn't do a good enough job communicating", as if putting lipstick on a pig would magically transform a sow it into Kate Upton.

When Chuck Schumer delivered his mea culpa about how Democrats should have focused on jobs and the economy - i.e., the people's priorities - instead of ObamaCare - i.e., the Democratic party's priorities - when they controlled Washington in 2009-10, he touched on what the Dems need to be doing a better job of, and that's listening to the American people and responding to their priorities. The "we didn't do a good enough job of communicating" excuse rings arrogant, patronizing and tone deaf in the minds of most Americans who are quite capable of determining whether a policy is good or not on their own. Treating the American people like idiots and insulting their intelligence is not smart policy and obviously it's not a winning strategy.

Consistent with this, Dems need to figure out that continuing their drift towards the lunatic "progressive" fringe isn't helping their party, either. In fact, the "progressive" policies that Obama and the Democrats pushed the last 8 years contributed largely to Hillary Clinton's defeat and the party's diminishing fortunes on every level since 2009. If the center of the Democratic party keeps cratering more and more people are going to keep looking and moving towards the GOP.

 

I strongly support IRV systems, which allow people to vote for whomever they want without worrying that it will accidentally elect the person they LEAST want.

Regional planning commissions already exist in some parts of the country. They do what you think they should do: look at the economy from a regional level, and come up with plans to accomodate future growth/shrinkage at a macro level.

Here in Minnesota, we have the Metropolitan Council, which is responsible for long-term planning of the seven-county metro area. They have a perspective that cities and counties don't. As a for-example, they preserve rights-of-way for future transportation infrastructure, so that when we grow dense enough to need a bunch of commuter trains, for example, we don't have to try to retrofit the lines, and end up with inefficient networks, destroying existing neighborhoods, etc.

But we only have that here in the metro area. Meanwhile, it is rural Minnesota that has the high unemployment and a stagnant economy. They could use the same sort of long-term attention.

Why not just leave it at the state level? Because economies are regional, crossing state lines. Western Minnesota's economy is intertwined with that of the eastern Dakotas. Southern Minnesota is economically connected to Iowa. Eastern Minnesota is economically connected to western Wisconsin.

That's really simplistic, and largely untrue. The vast majority of jobs aren't leaving the country.

I don't get the focus on manufacturing. It's like "bring back the manufacturing jobs" is the only solution people can think of. Problem is, it simply isn't going to happen. And not because the jobs are being shipped overseas, although some of them are.

Did you know that U.S. manufacturing output is at an all-time high, in terms of the value of goods produced? We have a healthy manufacturing sector. It's just that, in response to low-wage competition from abroad, we have moved up the food chain. We are now more like Germany, using highly automated factories to build high-quality, precision goods. This is awesome, because the jobs at those factories pay quite well. But because of the automation, we can produce the same amount of goods with far fewer workers.

So a lot of manufacturing jobs are NEVER coming back -- because of automation. We are irreversibly moving to an economy where most jobs are in the service sector.

But the service sector covers a huge range of jobs. It's basically everything that isn't manufacturing, farming and mining. Everyone pretends it's just retail and McDonalds. But I'm an IT consultant -- that's a service job. A lawyer is a service job. A doctor is a service job. So is a call-center worker, a plumber, an electrician, a fitness instructor ... on and on and on.

There are LOTS of good service jobs. And they are the kind of jobs that can't be shipped overseas, because a worker in India can't fix your faucet for you.

So the trick is simply trying to have more GOOD service jobs and fewer BAD service jobs. That's doable.

With thoughtful investments in infrastructure and job training, as well as regional planning around zoning and urban renewal, you can do more than cities, counties and states can do on their own. And because your focus is on the regional economy, not just this city or that county, everyone in the region should benefit in the long run, even if there is less specific investment in some areas than in others.

 

The tactical take away is the next cycle democrats will need to copy trump while at the same time bash trump. It's selling a counterfeit clone item by pitching it as better than the authentic original. Tick tock, times a wasting, democrats better wipe the drawing board clean and come up with a new make and model and fast. As it stands now, lots of democrats like their make and model as is and feel they would have won the race if Russia didn't deflate their tires, not noticing there wasn't anyone in the drivers seat.

 

Wow...."not a serious, reality based platform." your words just proved my point about Clausewitz.

1. Spirit
2. Loyalty
3. Morale

The Trump campaign was formulated as a strategic replacement model utilizing a consistently disciplined message.

That is exactly why the racist, sexist, xenophobic crap that the Democrats have been using for decades was so ineffective.

 

And opposing free trade has been pretty much it. Virtually everything else about his presidency is standard GOP positions, but perhaps more to the right. In 4 years we'll find out if that's what people expected/wanted or not.

 

Would you mind knocking off the Sphinx impression and clearly stating what you're talking about?

 

I assume that's meant to sarcastic? The only areas he was was consistent on were trade and a border wall.

 

See, I don't think Trump was lying out of his ass. I think he thought he could run the country better than the people who came before him because he is a businessman who was very successful and knows what it takes to get things done. Call it ego, call it whatever you want, but the genuine desire to "Make America Great Again" was completely genuine. At least in my opinion. If he was in this for money, he would have stayed private and raked in billions. Between himself and his son in law and the rest of the family, they have more than they can ever spend. If he was in it for money, he would be doing other things.

My biggest concern with Trump taking office was also the same reason I voted for him: He was a political outsider and I figured he would struggle for a bit trying to get his head wrapped around the politics in Washington.

Enough about Trump.

Question: Who do you want to see run for President for the Democrats in 2020?

 

You forget we live in the same state? I'm in a more rural part of it, and I've worked in manufacturing. It's not very high-tech, in my experience, and the pay and benefits are abysmal, and of course people rarely get time off to enjoy life to boot.

Maybe bringing manufacturing back isn't the solution, mainly because these jobs don't pay well anywhere unless they're unionized, and that only works in certain high-skill sectors, but I don't see what a committee is going to do about stagnating wages and people unable to get even a full-time position in many places outside of manufacturing. This is why Trump was popular, even if not deservedly so - he was ultimately promising to bring back jobs where many have left, and thereby at least indirectly promising to return a higher standard of living to people who don't live in metropolises with lots of white collar work, which seems to be the only work that pays well now outside of a few exceptions in skilled trades, where again, openings are limited and far from everyone is capable of training for and performing that work.

Our economy is depressed such that many are forced to perform low-skill labor, and that just can't support families the way manufacturing used to do. Rural areas can't keep up anymore. The businesses that pay well aren't going to relocate to dinky little towns, and they aren't going to open call centers there when India is such a better option for them, with a LOT of available labor and such low costs.

A committe might be able to plan commuter train lines, but I don't see how they're going to help rural Minnesota out of a greater economic rut that is ultimately the fault of globalization. Oh yes, it is. Trump the dope is right about that much. Globalization and automation both. Outside of the white collar business world, people's next best bet for a decent living is probably with the government on some level. I think it operates as a kind of life support and welfare program for our economy, an entity which offers better pay and benefits than most anything outside of the Fortune 500.

 

This sums it all up.

If you're a working class person who is just barely making ends meet, then what does the democrat party offer you? Just for existing you have to buy insurance you might not need and maybe can't afford. You suffer the misery of global warming through taxes or hidden costs due to regulations, your taxes support people who won't work or find ways not to, and you have to support bringing into this country illegals and refugees who contribute nothing but seem to promise to take a lot. If you're a middle class worker you see the rich Hollywood elites doing the very same things they tell you not to do, and on the opposite end of the spectrum you have those with little to no money making demands on yours.

And during the last 8 years what did democrats prioritize for the working guy? Tranny bathrooms, refugees, illegals, SSM and a strong focus on political correctness, and none of that helped anyone feed their families. So why would the average Joe on the street vote for a democrat?

 

Did anyone watch Marc levinson.
1973 was the peak. Everything's been tried and failed nothing consistently above 3 % growth. So dream on people
No college, it's tough

 

I personally think anywhere near 3% is a pipe dream unless Trump finds a way to fudge the numbers or get Putin to fudge it for him .

 

Both boons for the American worker.