It is currently Mon Feb 24, 2025 11:28 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1190 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 ... 40  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 11:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Tall Midget wrote:
City of Fools wrote:
I just don't get why a country could elect Barack Obama twice and then not elect Hillary Clinton. What changed?


1)Because Obama campaigned as a force for change whereas Hillary Clinton is the ultimate establishment figure;

2)Because working-class whites in the Rust Belt wanted payback for NAFTA;

3)Because a significant number of blacks, particularly black millennials see Clinton as racist (thanks to her positions on mass incarceration, welfare reform, and her condescending treatment of a BLM leader) and sat the election out.



If blacks were so Anti Hillary then why did they overwhelmingly vote for her over Sanders? Facts don't fit the narrative.

Turnout was bound to be lower because Obama wasn't on the ticket. Truer indicator would be black turnout versus that of black turnout historically. Without looking I'm pretty sure that it was similar to that of historical numbers .

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 11:40 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
long time guy wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
City of Fools wrote:
I just don't get why a country could elect Barack Obama twice and then not elect Hillary Clinton. What changed?


1)Because Obama campaigned as a force for change whereas Hillary Clinton is the ultimate establishment figure;

2)Because working-class whites in the Rust Belt wanted payback for NAFTA;

3)Because a significant number of blacks, particularly black millennials see Clinton as racist (thanks to her positions on mass incarceration, welfare reform, and her condescending treatment of a BLM leader) and sat the election out.



If blacks were so Anti Hillary then why did they overwhelmingly vote for her over Sanders? Facts don't fit the narrative.

Turnout was bound to be lower because Obama wasn't on the ticket. Truer indicator would be black turnout versus that of black turnout historically. Without looking I'm pretty sure that it was similar to that of historical numbers .


LTG you're wrong on this. MANY blacks under 35 hate Hillary and believe she is everything Trump is. MANY of them hate her because of Bernie.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 11:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 9:46 pm
Posts: 10261
pizza_Place: Q's Hillside
long time guy wrote:
50 + million people voted for a guy that is both racist in word and in deed. That means that they have little to no problem with racism.
No. It means that some people base their voting decisions on more than one issue. You seem to base yours strictly on "is this person a racist." That makes you no better than people who vote R because "Abortion is murder and nothing else matters" or its derivative 'It's all about the Supreme Court."

Single issue voters are dumbshits who are ruining this country. That goes for those who vote D and those who vote R.

_________________
"When people want their version of the truth, they go find it, no matter how baseless their beliefs." -- Ken Rosenthal


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 12:02 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
long time guy wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
City of Fools wrote:
I just don't get why a country could elect Barack Obama twice and then not elect Hillary Clinton. What changed?


1)Because Obama campaigned as a force for change whereas Hillary Clinton is the ultimate establishment figure;

2)Because working-class whites in the Rust Belt wanted payback for NAFTA;

3)Because a significant number of blacks, particularly black millennials see Clinton as racist (thanks to her positions on mass incarceration, welfare reform, and her condescending treatment of a BLM leader) and sat the election out.



If blacks were so Anti Hillary then why did they overwhelmingly vote for her over Sanders? Facts don't fit the narrative.

Turnout was bound to be lower because Obama wasn't on the ticket. Truer indicator would be black turnout versus that of black turnout historically. Without looking I'm pretty sure that it was similar to that of historical numbers .


Establishment blacks--typically an older constituency--overwhelmingly supported Clinton in the primaries, but this group isn't necessarily representative of the broader voting population for the general election.

Black millennials increased their support for Sanders as his campaign evolved and more attention was given to Clinton's regressive racial politics of the past--particularly her "superpredators" comment, which drew attention from many BLM organizers. The Trump campaign also actively attempted to suppress the black vote by using social media/radio to attack Clinton's "racist" politics.

I'm not sure how much Trump's efforts affected turnout (although he ran an incredibly sophisticated social media campaign) but BLM's refusal to endorse Clinton combined with its critique of her racial politics seem to have played a significant role in Trump's victory.

Trump was openly supported by white supremacists while also courting their votes. Black turnout should have been higher, but it regressed due to the changing perception of Clinton's racial credibility among ordinary black voters.

_________________
Antonio Gramsci wrote:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 12:13 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 56754
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
I think this whole race was a game of rock-paper-scissors. Trump is Rock, because he's as dumb as one. And of course Rock beats Scissors, which is Hillary, because her voice is sharp and cutting. But in order to maintain faith in the composition of the universe, I need to believe that Paper (Bernie, a giant stack of academic essays on the glory of social democracy) always beats Rock.

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 12:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93646
Location: To the left of my post
Bernie is one of the few people who could have and did lose an election to Hillary. It's highly unlikely he beats the man who beat Hillary.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 12:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:22 am
Posts: 15198
pizza_Place: Wha Happen?
Tall Midget wrote:
City of Fools wrote:
I just don't get why a country could elect Barack Obama twice and then not elect Hillary Clinton. What changed?


1)Because Obama campaigned as a force for change whereas Hillary Clinton is the ultimate establishment figure;

2)Because working-class whites in the Rust Belt wanted payback for NAFTA;

3)Because a significant number of blacks, particularly black millennials see Clinton as racist (thanks to her positions on mass incarceration, welfare reform, and her condescending treatment of a BLM leader) and sat the election out.

ok...that doesn't explain everything but it helps.

_________________
Ба́бушка гада́ла, да на́двое сказа́ла—то ли до́ждик, то ли снег, то ли бу́дет, то ли нет.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 12:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:22 am
Posts: 15198
pizza_Place: Wha Happen?
it is a shame that the party of progression seems to forget the workers making the same basic wages as someone in 1973. Perhaps that has something to do with it. But Trump supported coal and other things that are completely unworkable, so this should be great.

_________________
Ба́бушка гада́ла, да на́двое сказа́ла—то ли до́ждик, то ли снег, то ли бу́дет, то ли нет.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 12:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:29 pm
Posts: 34795
pizza_Place: Al's Pizza
Curious Hair wrote:
I think this whole race was a game of rock-paper-scissors. Trump is Rock, because he's as dumb as one. And of course Rock beats Scissors, which is Hillary, because her voice is sharp and cutting. But in order to maintain faith in the composition of the universe, I need to believe that Paper (Bernie, a giant stack of academic essays on the glory of social democracy) always beats Rock.


Nah, rock flies right through paper.

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 12:46 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
Chus wrote:
Curious Hair wrote:
I think this whole race was a game of rock-paper-scissors. Trump is Rock, because he's as dumb as one. And of course Rock beats Scissors, which is Hillary, because her voice is sharp and cutting. But in order to maintain faith in the composition of the universe, I need to believe that Paper (Bernie, a giant stack of academic essays on the glory of social democracy) always beats Rock.


Nah, rock flies right through paper.


#Truth

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 12:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 33244
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
City of Fools wrote:
it is a shame that the party of progression seems to forget the workers making the same basic wages as someone in 1973. Perhaps that has something to do with it. But Trump supported coal and other things that are completely unworkable, so this should be great.


It is crazy that Republicans, led by a billionaire, stole so many working class voters from Clinton. My step father is a prime example. He has voted for Democrats his entire life. He lives off a union pension. Not only did he enthusiastically vote for Trump, he had a bet with a neighbor that Trump would beat Clinton.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 12:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 5:43 pm
Posts: 2220
pizza_Place: ....
Curious Hair wrote:
I think this whole race was a game of rock-paper-scissors. Trump is Rock, because he's as dumb as one. And of course Rock beats Scissors, which is Hillary, because her voice is sharp and cutting. But in order to maintain faith in the composition of the universe, I need to believe that Paper (Bernie, a giant stack of academic essays on the glory of social democracy) always beats Rock.

In real life, not games, the rock is called a"paperweight" and covers the paper, protecting it from falling off the desk . . . in the instances when the paper does cover the rock, it is only momentary, as, the paper is soon simply carried away with the slightest breeze.

_________________
I like thinking big. . . If you're going to be thinking anything, you might as well think big.
-Donald J. Trump, BPE
FavreFan wrote:
I apologize to The Hawk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 12:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:22 am
Posts: 15198
pizza_Place: Wha Happen?
denisdman wrote:
City of Fools wrote:
it is a shame that the party of progression seems to forget the workers making the same basic wages as someone in 1973. Perhaps that has something to do with it. But Trump supported coal and other things that are completely unworkable, so this should be great.


It is crazy that Republicans, led by a billionaire, stole so many working class voters from Clinton. My step father is a prime example. He has voted for Democrats his entire life. He lives off a union pension. Not only did he enthusiastically vote for Trump, he had a bet with a neighbor that Trump would beat Clinton.

exactly.

_________________
Ба́бушка гада́ла, да на́двое сказа́ла—то ли до́ждик, то ли снег, то ли бу́дет, то ли нет.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 12:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 33244
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
Panther pislA wrote:
Curious Hair wrote:
I think this whole race was a game of rock-paper-scissors. Trump is Rock, because he's as dumb as one. And of course Rock beats Scissors, which is Hillary, because her voice is sharp and cutting. But in order to maintain faith in the composition of the universe, I need to believe that Paper (Bernie, a giant stack of academic essays on the glory of social democracy) always beats Rock.

In real life, not games, the rock is called a"paperweight" and covers the paper, protecting it from falling off the desk . . . in the instances when the paper does cover the rock, it is only momentary, as, the paper is soon simply carried away with the slightest breeze.


Your rise into the philosophical realm could spell a new age of great learning around this site. Long live Panther.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 1:00 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 56754
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
denisdman wrote:
City of Fools wrote:
it is a shame that the party of progression seems to forget the workers making the same basic wages as someone in 1973. Perhaps that has something to do with it. But Trump supported coal and other things that are completely unworkable, so this should be great.


It is crazy that Republicans, led by a billionaire, stole so many working class voters from Clinton. My step father is a prime example. He has voted for Democrats his entire life. He lives off a union pension. Not only did he enthusiastically vote for Trump, he had a bet with a neighbor that Trump would beat Clinton.


As that article RFDC posted pointed out, the working class is not most contemptuous of the extremely wealthy but of the white-collar professionals who work in service of the extremely wealthy, and who does that describe more than the leadership of the Democratic Party?

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 1:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 2:15 pm
Posts: 10
pizza_Place: Topolobampo
Panther pislA wrote:
Curious Hair wrote:
I think this whole race was a game of rock-paper-scissors. Trump is Rock, because he's as dumb as one. And of course Rock beats Scissors, which is Hillary, because her voice is sharp and cutting. But in order to maintain faith in the composition of the universe, I need to believe that Paper (Bernie, a giant stack of academic essays on the glory of social democracy) always beats Rock.

In real life, not games, the rock is called a"paperweight" and covers the paper, protecting it from falling off the desk . . . in the instances when the paper does cover the rock, it is only momentary, as, the paper is soon simply carried away with the slightest breeze.



Wow, man. That's deep!

_________________
LeBron James sucks!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 1:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 33244
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
Curious Hair wrote:
denisdman wrote:
City of Fools wrote:
it is a shame that the party of progression seems to forget the workers making the same basic wages as someone in 1973. Perhaps that has something to do with it. But Trump supported coal and other things that are completely unworkable, so this should be great.


It is crazy that Republicans, led by a billionaire, stole so many working class voters from Clinton. My step father is a prime example. He has voted for Democrats his entire life. He lives off a union pension. Not only did he enthusiastically vote for Trump, he had a bet with a neighbor that Trump would beat Clinton.


As that article RFDC posted pointed out, the working class is not most contemptuous of the extremely wealthy but of the white-collar professionals who work in service of the extremely wealthy, and who does that describe more than the leadership of the Democratic Party?


Interesting I hadn't heard of that wrinkle.

In my families (two from my biological parents and another from my in laws), it is a somewhat strange socioeconomic dynamic. We have several of us who would fit into your definition of white collar professionals having attended universities and climbed the ladder in our respective occupations. Then there is the other half who have largely followed our parents in either true blue collar jobs or in office jobs that do not require a college degree. It is striking how the paths have diverged among us, my six siblings and my wife's four.

The changes occurred gradually, and with most of us at or past 40, now you see a large separation in life styles. Thus, your point is a good one.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 1:26 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 56754
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
It was over in the Trump thread. Here's the full article.

Quote:
For months, the only thing that’s surprised me about Donald Trump is my friends’ astonishment at his success. What’s driving it is the class culture gap.

One little-known element of that gap is that the white working class (WWC) resents professionals but admires the rich. Class migrants (white-collar professionals born to blue-collar families) report that “professional people were generally suspect” and that managers are college kids “who don’t know shit about how to do anything but are full of ideas about how I have to do my job,” said Alfred Lubrano in Limbo. Barbara Ehrenreich recalled in 1990 that her blue-collar dad “could not say the word doctor without the virtual prefix quack. Lawyers were shysters…and professors were without exception phonies.” Annette Lareau found tremendous resentment against teachers, who were perceived as condescending and unhelpful.

Michèle Lamont, in The Dignity of Working Men, also found resentment of professionals — but not of the rich. “[I] can’t knock anyone for succeeding,” a laborer told her. “There’s a lot of people out there who are wealthy and I’m sure they worked darned hard for every cent they have,” chimed in a receiving clerk. Why the difference? For one thing, most blue-collar workers have little direct contact with the rich outside of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. But professionals order them around every day. The dream is not to become upper-middle-class, with its different food, family, and friendship patterns; the dream is to live in your own class milieu, where you feel comfortable — just with more money. “The main thing is to be independent and give your own orders and not have to take them from anybody else,” a machine operator told Lamont. Owning one’s own business — that’s the goal. That’s another part of Trump’s appeal.

Hillary Clinton, by contrast, epitomizes the dorky arrogance and smugness of the professional elite. The dorkiness: the pantsuits. The arrogance: the email server. The smugness: the basket of deplorables. Worse, her mere presence rubs it in that even women from her class can treat working-class men with disrespect. Look at how she condescends to Trump as unfit to hold the office of the presidency and dismisses his supporters as racist, sexist, homophobic, or xenophobic.

Trump’s blunt talk taps into another blue-collar value: straight talk. “Directness is a working-class norm,” notes Lubrano. As one blue-collar guy told him, “If you have a problem with me, come talk to me. If you have a way you want something done, come talk to me. I don’t like people who play these two-faced games.” Straight talk is seen as requiring manly courage, not being “a total wuss and a wimp,” an electronics technician told Lamont. Of course Trump appeals. Clinton’s clunky admission that she talks one way in public and another in private? Further proof she’s a two-faced phony.

Manly dignity is a big deal for working-class men, and they’re not feeling that they have it. Trump promises a world free of political correctness and a return to an earlier era, when men were men and women knew their place. It’s comfort food for high-school-educated guys who could have been my father-in-law if they’d been born 30 years earlier. Today they feel like losers — or did until they met Trump.


Obligatory disclaimer: we all know full well that Trump is full of shit and that analyzing why Clinton lost is not an endorsement of his wrongness.

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 1:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 5:43 pm
Posts: 2220
pizza_Place: ....
denisdman wrote:
Panther pislA wrote:
Curious Hair wrote:
I think this whole race was a game of rock-paper-scissors. Trump is Rock, because he's as dumb as one. And of course Rock beats Scissors, which is Hillary, because her voice is sharp and cutting. But in order to maintain faith in the composition of the universe, I need to believe that Paper (Bernie, a giant stack of academic essays on the glory of social democracy) always beats Rock.

In real life, not games, the rock is called a"paperweight" and covers the paper, protecting it from falling off the desk . . . in the instances when the paper does cover the rock, it is only momentary, as, the paper is soon simply carried away with the slightest breeze.


Your rise into the philosophical realm could spell a new age of great learning around this site. Long live Panther.

You are quite the diplomat. DDM! :wink: :santa: :cat:

_________________
I like thinking big. . . If you're going to be thinking anything, you might as well think big.
-Donald J. Trump, BPE
FavreFan wrote:
I apologize to The Hawk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 1:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 33244
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
Thanks CH. I missed that. I was at a conference downtown last week, so my posts mainly consisted of hung over phone taps while on the insufferable Metra ride to Big Timber, yeah 90 minutes of hell.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 2:50 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
Curious Hair wrote:
It was over in the Trump thread. Here's the full article.

Quote:
For months, the only thing that’s surprised me about Donald Trump is my friends’ astonishment at his success. What’s driving it is the class culture gap.

One little-known element of that gap is that the white working class (WWC) resents professionals but admires the rich. Class migrants (white-collar professionals born to blue-collar families) report that “professional people were generally suspect” and that managers are college kids “who don’t know shit about how to do anything but are full of ideas about how I have to do my job,” said Alfred Lubrano in Limbo. Barbara Ehrenreich recalled in 1990 that her blue-collar dad “could not say the word doctor without the virtual prefix quack. Lawyers were shysters…and professors were without exception phonies.” Annette Lareau found tremendous resentment against teachers, who were perceived as condescending and unhelpful.

Michèle Lamont, in The Dignity of Working Men, also found resentment of professionals — but not of the rich. “[I] can’t knock anyone for succeeding,” a laborer told her. “There’s a lot of people out there who are wealthy and I’m sure they worked darned hard for every cent they have,” chimed in a receiving clerk. Why the difference? For one thing, most blue-collar workers have little direct contact with the rich outside of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. But professionals order them around every day. The dream is not to become upper-middle-class, with its different food, family, and friendship patterns; the dream is to live in your own class milieu, where you feel comfortable — just with more money. “The main thing is to be independent and give your own orders and not have to take them from anybody else,” a machine operator told Lamont. Owning one’s own business — that’s the goal. That’s another part of Trump’s appeal.

Hillary Clinton, by contrast, epitomizes the dorky arrogance and smugness of the professional elite. The dorkiness: the pantsuits. The arrogance: the email server. The smugness: the basket of deplorables. Worse, her mere presence rubs it in that even women from her class can treat working-class men with disrespect. Look at how she condescends to Trump as unfit to hold the office of the presidency and dismisses his supporters as racist, sexist, homophobic, or xenophobic.

Trump’s blunt talk taps into another blue-collar value: straight talk. “Directness is a working-class norm,” notes Lubrano. As one blue-collar guy told him, “If you have a problem with me, come talk to me. If you have a way you want something done, come talk to me. I don’t like people who play these two-faced games.” Straight talk is seen as requiring manly courage, not being “a total wuss and a wimp,” an electronics technician told Lamont. Of course Trump appeals. Clinton’s clunky admission that she talks one way in public and another in private? Further proof she’s a two-faced phony.

Manly dignity is a big deal for working-class men, and they’re not feeling that they have it. Trump promises a world free of political correctness and a return to an earlier era, when men were men and women knew their place. It’s comfort food for high-school-educated guys who could have been my father-in-law if they’d been born 30 years earlier. Today they feel like losers — or did until they met Trump.


Obligatory disclaimer: we all know full well that Trump is full of shit and that analyzing why Clinton lost is not an endorsement of his wrongness.


It's not just a question of culture--it's also a matter of raw political, occupational and economic power.

The Democrats have largely been the party of the professional-managerial class, not the working class, since the late 1970s/early 1980s, the point at which the rapidly expanding PMC became roughly 1/3 of the electorate. "New Democrats" like Clinton thought they were safe in championing a PMC agenda (neoliberal economics, marginalization of urban issues in favor of suburbia, political correctness, etc) because the working class "had nowhere else to go," providing the party with a multi-class coalition that would be difficult to overcome at the national level. But the Democrats' increasingly conservative economic policies eventually forced many working class voters to elect Republicans on the basis of social issues. Now Trump's right-wing economic populism may have finally exploded our frayed political paradigms, definitively providing white working class voters with a new and seemingly permanent ideological home. It's no coincidence that Clinton won only the counties/states considered to be epicenters for the PMC. And it's certainly no coincidence that Trump won almost exclusively in areas where the population is definitively non-PMC.

_________________
Antonio Gramsci wrote:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 2:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Tall Midget wrote:
Curious Hair wrote:
It was over in the Trump thread. Here's the full article.

Quote:
For months, the only thing that’s surprised me about Donald Trump is my friends’ astonishment at his success. What’s driving it is the class culture gap.

One little-known element of that gap is that the white working class (WWC) resents professionals but admires the rich. Class migrants (white-collar professionals born to blue-collar families) report that “professional people were generally suspect” and that managers are college kids “who don’t know shit about how to do anything but are full of ideas about how I have to do my job,” said Alfred Lubrano in Limbo. Barbara Ehrenreich recalled in 1990 that her blue-collar dad “could not say the word doctor without the virtual prefix quack. Lawyers were shysters…and professors were without exception phonies.” Annette Lareau found tremendous resentment against teachers, who were perceived as condescending and unhelpful.

Michèle Lamont, in The Dignity of Working Men, also found resentment of professionals — but not of the rich. “[I] can’t knock anyone for succeeding,” a laborer told her. “There’s a lot of people out there who are wealthy and I’m sure they worked darned hard for every cent they have,” chimed in a receiving clerk. Why the difference? For one thing, most blue-collar workers have little direct contact with the rich outside of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. But professionals order them around every day. The dream is not to become upper-middle-class, with its different food, family, and friendship patterns; the dream is to live in your own class milieu, where you feel comfortable — just with more money. “The main thing is to be independent and give your own orders and not have to take them from anybody else,” a machine operator told Lamont. Owning one’s own business — that’s the goal. That’s another part of Trump’s appeal.

Hillary Clinton, by contrast, epitomizes the dorky arrogance and smugness of the professional elite. The dorkiness: the pantsuits. The arrogance: the email server. The smugness: the basket of deplorables. Worse, her mere presence rubs it in that even women from her class can treat working-class men with disrespect. Look at how she condescends to Trump as unfit to hold the office of the presidency and dismisses his supporters as racist, sexist, homophobic, or xenophobic.

Trump’s blunt talk taps into another blue-collar value: straight talk. “Directness is a working-class norm,” notes Lubrano. As one blue-collar guy told him, “If you have a problem with me, come talk to me. If you have a way you want something done, come talk to me. I don’t like people who play these two-faced games.” Straight talk is seen as requiring manly courage, not being “a total wuss and a wimp,” an electronics technician told Lamont. Of course Trump appeals. Clinton’s clunky admission that she talks one way in public and another in private? Further proof she’s a two-faced phony.

Manly dignity is a big deal for working-class men, and they’re not feeling that they have it. Trump promises a world free of political correctness and a return to an earlier era, when men were men and women knew their place. It’s comfort food for high-school-educated guys who could have been my father-in-law if they’d been born 30 years earlier. Today they feel like losers — or did until they met Trump.


Obligatory disclaimer: we all know full well that Trump is full of shit and that analyzing why Clinton lost is not an endorsement of his wrongness.


It's not just a question of culture--it's also a matter of raw political, occupational and economic power.

The Democrats have largely been the party of the professional-managerial class, not the working class, since the late 1970s/early 1980s, the point at which the rapidly expanding PMC became roughly 1/3 of the electorate. "New Democrats" like Clinton thought they were safe in championing a PMC agenda (neoliberal economics, marginalization of urban issues in favor of suburbia, political correctness, etc) because the working class "had nowhere else to go," providing the party with a multi-class coalition that would be difficult to overcome at the national level. But the Democrats' increasingly conservative economic policies eventually forced many working class voters to elect Republicans on the basis of social issues. Now Trump's right-wing economic populism may have finally exploded our frayed political paradigms, definitively providing white working class voters with a new and seemingly permanent ideological home. It's no coincidence that Clinton won only the counties/states considered to be epicenters for the PMC. And it's certainly no coincidence that Trump won almost exclusively in areas where the population is definitively non-PMC.


I like that you highlighted that they were forced out of the Democratic party more than they were courted properly by Trump. Still, I think the understanding of economics is overstated by many. I don't think many working class people are real familiar with neoliberal economic policies or NAFTA (how's that for elitist?). At most, some of them probably simply realize that their economic fortune hasn't gotten any better with a Democratic executive branch. I'm sure Hillary pushed many out because of this realization, but I think far more just didn't like her as an individual (and justifiably so) and felt they had no alternative other than Trump (which is also true - just a matter of how much they hated Hillary).

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 2:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/a ... al/507473/

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 3:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
long time guy wrote:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/11/how-white-power-went-viral/507473/


LTG, I don't want to speak for all rural people like that guy who was on Bill Maher Friday, but have you ever driven south of I-80 or West of DeKalb and had conversations with some of the people out there? Ever mentioned the name Hillary Clinton in their presence?

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 3:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:05 am
Posts: 28664
pizza_Place: Clamburger's
leashyourkids wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
Curious Hair wrote:
It was over in the Trump thread. Here's the full article.

Quote:
For months, the only thing that’s surprised me about Donald Trump is my friends’ astonishment at his success. What’s driving it is the class culture gap.

One little-known element of that gap is that the white working class (WWC) resents professionals but admires the rich. Class migrants (white-collar professionals born to blue-collar families) report that “professional people were generally suspect” and that managers are college kids “who don’t know shit about how to do anything but are full of ideas about how I have to do my job,” said Alfred Lubrano in Limbo. Barbara Ehrenreich recalled in 1990 that her blue-collar dad “could not say the word doctor without the virtual prefix quack. Lawyers were shysters…and professors were without exception phonies.” Annette Lareau found tremendous resentment against teachers, who were perceived as condescending and unhelpful.

Michèle Lamont, in The Dignity of Working Men, also found resentment of professionals — but not of the rich. “[I] can’t knock anyone for succeeding,” a laborer told her. “There’s a lot of people out there who are wealthy and I’m sure they worked darned hard for every cent they have,” chimed in a receiving clerk. Why the difference? For one thing, most blue-collar workers have little direct contact with the rich outside of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. But professionals order them around every day. The dream is not to become upper-middle-class, with its different food, family, and friendship patterns; the dream is to live in your own class milieu, where you feel comfortable — just with more money. “The main thing is to be independent and give your own orders and not have to take them from anybody else,” a machine operator told Lamont. Owning one’s own business — that’s the goal. That’s another part of Trump’s appeal.

Hillary Clinton, by contrast, epitomizes the dorky arrogance and smugness of the professional elite. The dorkiness: the pantsuits. The arrogance: the email server. The smugness: the basket of deplorables. Worse, her mere presence rubs it in that even women from her class can treat working-class men with disrespect. Look at how she condescends to Trump as unfit to hold the office of the presidency and dismisses his supporters as racist, sexist, homophobic, or xenophobic.

Trump’s blunt talk taps into another blue-collar value: straight talk. “Directness is a working-class norm,” notes Lubrano. As one blue-collar guy told him, “If you have a problem with me, come talk to me. If you have a way you want something done, come talk to me. I don’t like people who play these two-faced games.” Straight talk is seen as requiring manly courage, not being “a total wuss and a wimp,” an electronics technician told Lamont. Of course Trump appeals. Clinton’s clunky admission that she talks one way in public and another in private? Further proof she’s a two-faced phony.

Manly dignity is a big deal for working-class men, and they’re not feeling that they have it. Trump promises a world free of political correctness and a return to an earlier era, when men were men and women knew their place. It’s comfort food for high-school-educated guys who could have been my father-in-law if they’d been born 30 years earlier. Today they feel like losers — or did until they met Trump.


Obligatory disclaimer: we all know full well that Trump is full of shit and that analyzing why Clinton lost is not an endorsement of his wrongness.


It's not just a question of culture--it's also a matter of raw political, occupational and economic power.

The Democrats have largely been the party of the professional-managerial class, not the working class, since the late 1970s/early 1980s, the point at which the rapidly expanding PMC became roughly 1/3 of the electorate. "New Democrats" like Clinton thought they were safe in championing a PMC agenda (neoliberal economics, marginalization of urban issues in favor of suburbia, political correctness, etc) because the working class "had nowhere else to go," providing the party with a multi-class coalition that would be difficult to overcome at the national level. But the Democrats' increasingly conservative economic policies eventually forced many working class voters to elect Republicans on the basis of social issues. Now Trump's right-wing economic populism may have finally exploded our frayed political paradigms, definitively providing white working class voters with a new and seemingly permanent ideological home. It's no coincidence that Clinton won only the counties/states considered to be epicenters for the PMC. And it's certainly no coincidence that Trump won almost exclusively in areas where the population is definitively non-PMC.


I like that you highlighted that they were forced out of the Democratic party more than they were courted properly by Trump. Still, I think the understanding of economics is overstated by many. I don't think many working class people are real familiar with neoliberal economic policies or NAFTA (how's that for elitist?). At most, some of them probably simply realize that their economic fortune hasn't gotten any better with a Democratic executive branch. I'm sure Hillary pushed many out because of this realization, but I think far more just didn't like her as an individual (and justifiably so) and felt they had no alternative other than Trump (which is also true - just a matter of how much they hated Hillary).


I think that's the essence of it Leash. No matter how much the recession wasn't the Obama administration's fault, working class Americans saw very little, no change, or worsening economic situations for themselves in the last 8 years.

_________________
Nardi wrote:
Weird, I see Dolphin looking in my asshole


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 3:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 33244
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
Tall Midget wrote:

It's not just a question of culture--it's also a matter of raw political, occupational and economic power.

The Democrats have largely been the party of the professional-managerial class, not the working class, since the late 1970s/early 1980s, the point at which the rapidly expanding PMC became roughly 1/3 of the electorate. "New Democrats" like Clinton thought they were safe in championing a PMC agenda (neoliberal economics, marginalization of urban issues in favor of suburbia, political correctness, etc) because the working class "had nowhere else to go," providing the party with a multi-class coalition that would be difficult to overcome at the national level. But the Democrats' increasingly conservative economic policies eventually forced many working class voters to elect Republicans on the basis of social issues. Now Trump's right-wing economic populism may have finally exploded our frayed political paradigms, definitively providing white working class voters with a new and seemingly permanent ideological home. It's no coincidence that Clinton won only the counties/states considered to be epicenters for the PMC. And it's certainly no coincidence that Trump won almost exclusively in areas where the population is definitively non-PMC.


I like your assessment of the situation. I've watched enough CNN to make Ted Turner get erect, and I haven't heard any analysis with such depth and coherence on that station.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 3:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 33244
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
leashyourkids wrote:
long time guy wrote:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/11/how-white-power-went-viral/507473/


LTG, I don't want to speak for all rural people like that guy who was on Bill Maher Friday, but have you ever driven south of I-80 or West of DeKalb and had conversations with some of the people out there? Ever mentioned the name Hillary Clinton in their presence?


It makes you wonder, if racists in IA, WI, PA, and MI are the reason Trump won, where were these racists when Democrats were consistently winning those states?

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 3:10 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
leashyourkids wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
Curious Hair wrote:
It was over in the Trump thread. Here's the full article.

Quote:
For months, the only thing that’s surprised me about Donald Trump is my friends’ astonishment at his success. What’s driving it is the class culture gap.

One little-known element of that gap is that the white working class (WWC) resents professionals but admires the rich. Class migrants (white-collar professionals born to blue-collar families) report that “professional people were generally suspect” and that managers are college kids “who don’t know shit about how to do anything but are full of ideas about how I have to do my job,” said Alfred Lubrano in Limbo. Barbara Ehrenreich recalled in 1990 that her blue-collar dad “could not say the word doctor without the virtual prefix quack. Lawyers were shysters…and professors were without exception phonies.” Annette Lareau found tremendous resentment against teachers, who were perceived as condescending and unhelpful.

Michèle Lamont, in The Dignity of Working Men, also found resentment of professionals — but not of the rich. “[I] can’t knock anyone for succeeding,” a laborer told her. “There’s a lot of people out there who are wealthy and I’m sure they worked darned hard for every cent they have,” chimed in a receiving clerk. Why the difference? For one thing, most blue-collar workers have little direct contact with the rich outside of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. But professionals order them around every day. The dream is not to become upper-middle-class, with its different food, family, and friendship patterns; the dream is to live in your own class milieu, where you feel comfortable — just with more money. “The main thing is to be independent and give your own orders and not have to take them from anybody else,” a machine operator told Lamont. Owning one’s own business — that’s the goal. That’s another part of Trump’s appeal.

Hillary Clinton, by contrast, epitomizes the dorky arrogance and smugness of the professional elite. The dorkiness: the pantsuits. The arrogance: the email server. The smugness: the basket of deplorables. Worse, her mere presence rubs it in that even women from her class can treat working-class men with disrespect. Look at how she condescends to Trump as unfit to hold the office of the presidency and dismisses his supporters as racist, sexist, homophobic, or xenophobic.

Trump’s blunt talk taps into another blue-collar value: straight talk. “Directness is a working-class norm,” notes Lubrano. As one blue-collar guy told him, “If you have a problem with me, come talk to me. If you have a way you want something done, come talk to me. I don’t like people who play these two-faced games.” Straight talk is seen as requiring manly courage, not being “a total wuss and a wimp,” an electronics technician told Lamont. Of course Trump appeals. Clinton’s clunky admission that she talks one way in public and another in private? Further proof she’s a two-faced phony.

Manly dignity is a big deal for working-class men, and they’re not feeling that they have it. Trump promises a world free of political correctness and a return to an earlier era, when men were men and women knew their place. It’s comfort food for high-school-educated guys who could have been my father-in-law if they’d been born 30 years earlier. Today they feel like losers — or did until they met Trump.


Obligatory disclaimer: we all know full well that Trump is full of shit and that analyzing why Clinton lost is not an endorsement of his wrongness.


It's not just a question of culture--it's also a matter of raw political, occupational and economic power.

The Democrats have largely been the party of the professional-managerial class, not the working class, since the late 1970s/early 1980s, the point at which the rapidly expanding PMC became roughly 1/3 of the electorate. "New Democrats" like Clinton thought they were safe in championing a PMC agenda (neoliberal economics, marginalization of urban issues in favor of suburbia, political correctness, etc) because the working class "had nowhere else to go," providing the party with a multi-class coalition that would be difficult to overcome at the national level. But the Democrats' increasingly conservative economic policies eventually forced many working class voters to elect Republicans on the basis of social issues. Now Trump's right-wing economic populism may have finally exploded our frayed political paradigms, definitively providing white working class voters with a new and seemingly permanent ideological home. It's no coincidence that Clinton won only the counties/states considered to be epicenters for the PMC. And it's certainly no coincidence that Trump won almost exclusively in areas where the population is definitively non-PMC.


I like that you highlighted that they were forced out of the Democratic party more than they were courted properly by Trump. Still, I think the understanding of economics is overstated by many. I don't think many working class people are real familiar with neoliberal economic policies or NAFTA (how's that for elitist?). At most, some of them probably simply realize that their economic fortune hasn't gotten any better with a Democratic executive branch. I'm sure Hillary pushed many out because of this realization, but I think far more just didn't like her as an individual (and justifiably so) and felt they had no alternative other than Trump (which is also true - just a matter of how much they hated Hillary).


Tidal shifts in economic policy--such as NAFTA's advocacy by Clinton--definitely changes votes. This is a quantifiable fact. Such a change, though, can become codified culturally--over multiple years/election cycles--to such an extent that the support for a given party is no longer explained/discussed/referenced in terms of the causal economic force, but in a kind of idiomatic political shorthand, as described in the excerpt quoted by CH.

_________________
Antonio Gramsci wrote:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 3:15 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
I should add to my post above that our political discourse--though often shaped by economic policy--is frequently only a kind of "secondary" discussion that addresses the symptoms of conflict/disagreement without examining the root cause of such controversies.

_________________
Antonio Gramsci wrote:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton vs Trump
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 3:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 33244
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
Tall Midget wrote:
I should add to my post above that our political discourse--though often shaped by economic policy--is frequently only a kind of "secondary" discussion that addresses the symptoms of conflict/disagreement without examining the root cause of such controversies.


List your root causes...

A few of mine:
-Post industrial jobs market where knowledge is worth more than physical ability,
-Decline of the family and community,
-Growing income inequality,
-Aging society,
-Rapid changing social norms.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1190 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 ... 40  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group