Here's the thing about our party eating their hearts out about not appealing to the working-class

[bigtree]

Last edited Sat Dec 3, 2016, 10:43 PM - Edit history (1)

from Phillip Bump at WaPo:

In nearly every swing state, voters preferred Hillary Clinton on the economy

Exit polls show Hillary Clinton winning a majority of the vote from people who told pollsters that the economy was the most important issue facing the country. What's more, in each state, a majority of voters said that was the case.

In fact, if we extend that out to every state for which we have exit polling, in 22 of those 27 states a majority of people said that the economy was the most important issue. And in 20 of those states, voters who said so preferred Hillary Clinton. In 17, in fact, a majority of those voters backed Clinton.

How can that be? How can she win a majority of the majority and still lose? Because she lost with other groups worse.

The exit poll questionnaire gave voters a choice between four options for the most important issue. Clinton was generally preferred by those who said foreign policy was the most important issue, too, but Trump was preferred by those who saw immigration or terrorism as most important. The key is the margins. On average, about 13 percent of people in the 27 states said foreign policy was most important and they preferred Clinton by an average of 30 points. On average, voters who said the economy was most important preferred Clinton by 7.3. But on terrorism, rated most important by a fifth of voters, on average, Trump led by an average of 21.8 points. On immigration (most important to an average of 12.2 percent of respondents)? A huge 42.1 percentage point lead for Trump.

Trump's narrow wins in those three key states mean that any number of factors could have been the determining one. But across the country, the story told by the exit polls seems clear: Trump didn't win because people were worried about the economy. He won thanks to people who were worried about the subjects of immigration and terrorism that he started hammering on from the very first day of his campaign.

read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/02/in-nearly-every-swing-state-voters-preferred-hillary-clinton-on-the-economy/?utm_term=.a9702b3be4ff

...in some ways the economy did play a big part in the loss, but not in any credible way. Trump was able to convince (or identify with) enough non-Latino whites that their economic distress was due to immigration or what they perceive as black privilege, if only in their insecure minds.

[pangaia]

1. So, people with irrational, ignorant fear of the 'other'

elected Frankenstein's monster..
republicans being Frankenstein....

Probably the same people who were afraid to fly after 9/11/01/

[bigtree]

2. right

...and how do you address that?

Hillary's approach was to run an inclusive campaign - 'Stronger Together.' If there was one message the white working-class got from Hillary in this campaign, it almost certainly was that black lives were going to matter in her presidency. Hillary challenged white Americans to acknowledge their economic successes and take heed of those who have been left behind in the recovering economy. More importantly, Hillary insisted that white Americans should recognize and appreciate the role race plays in the failure of the black community to fully benefit from the economic recovery.

[pangaia]

4. I really don't know what the answer is at this point.

The playing field just got ripped up.

Nor do I know all the reasons Hillary "lost."
Other than the stunning ignorance of the US electorate.

I get a headache reading all the posts about why, or whose fault it was...

I DO know, 1984 is really here, only 32 years late.

[Bear Creek]

3. Not really

The election in fly over states was close it was not a land slide. So about 25% got in him office. That means 75% of us do not think that way. Hillary won the popular vote by millions. The class that is following trump has been indocturnated with biased information starting when Jimmy Carter was in office.
Also the voting machines were never addressed. Obama got into office but no senators or representatives? Too many republicans were elected to it not being questioned. Russian hacks and the FBI, the head of NSA said the election was hacked. This travesity needs to be stopped. Trump fighting the recount, if he really won he should not care the re-count would just reinforce he won.

[portlander23]

5. Exit polls

Stop Obsessing Over White Working-Class Voters
Joshua Holland
Rolling Stone

According to the exit polls, Clinton underperformed Barack Obama's 2012 results among not only non-college educated whites, but also white men; black men and women; Hispanic men and women; Asian men and women; men and women of other races; every age group except voters over 65; liberals, moderates and conservatives; Protestants, Catholics, adherents of other religions and those who claim no religious affiliation; married men and unmarried men and women; union and non-union households; self-identified Democrats; straight people; people who think undocumented immigrants should be given legal status; and people who think the country is going in the right direction.

It's true that in 2016, non-college whites swung to the GOP by a 15-point margin relative to 2012. But Clinton underperformed Obama among voters of all races who make less than $30,000 per year by an identical margin. If the pundits were churning out hundreds of columns about how the Dems need to win back low-income voters, it would likely have a more salutary effect on Democratic policy.

[bigtree]

7. 'Barack Obama's result'

...was due, in large part, to his appeal to a new contingent of black voters.

Not only that, what these results show as higher turnout for Trump among whites is due, in large part, to the way republican voters in '08 and '12 felt about their party's nominees. Romney was widely disliked by most of the white voters who made up the margin for trump in this election - exactly the same antipathy from the right-wing toward McCain.

Trump was a different candidate than Romney and McCain. He had a lurid and prevaricating campaign appeal which would have been an anathema to his republican predecessors. I'm not talking about the types of campaign rhetoric that came from Sanders during the primary that Hillary's 'Wall Street connections' meant that she couldn't or wouldn't represent the working class. Whatever the truth is about Hillary and that nebulous campaign meme, 'Wall Street connections' couldn't be all that important to anyone who voted for this ruthless capitalist who's demonstrated nothing but antipathy to the people who've worked for him over the entirety of his privileged life.

Trump appealed to the insecurity of some white Americans who have been convinced their share of the nation's economic benefits are being unfairly threatened by blacks, immigrants, and anyone else who dare assert their rightful role in our country's economy. He left no dog-whistle behind as he promised to restore these psychologically-displaced souls to their assumed place of prominence in society.

Of course, Hillary Clinton ran a different campaign than Sanders or Trump, but she also ran a markedly different one than Barack Obama. Hillary certainly did reach out to the working-class in her campaign. While white working-class voters may well have questioned her embrace of the Obama economic record, Hillary also enmeshed her own economic proposals with a pragmatic, yet populist appeal which echoed the progressive bent of the rival Sanders and O'Malley campaigns.

[portlander23]

8. Yes Obama turned out more black voters and Trump tapped into racism

But if you compare Clinton 2016 with Obama 2012, she loses support from nearly every demographic of the Obama coalition. The 2016 results are as much about who didn't show up for Clinton as to who showed up for Trump.

[bigtree]

9. Barack Obama was a unique phenom in politics

...I just don't believe it's a credible comparison. participation was down.

Moreover, voting restrictions played a huge part in suppressing hundreds of thousands of 'Obama voters.'

[portlander23]

10. Sure

But this is against 2012 re-election Obama, who'd lost ground in a lot of groups from 2008 phenomenon Obama. Clinton was down a blanket 4% from those numbers. At some point you have to examine the candidate and the campaign.

[bigtree]

13. well

...the argument I'm making here is that economics isn't the difference made in this campaign.

There's not much you can read from turnout. But there was massive voter suppression. If you're going to extrapolate anything concrete from this election, it's that millions of voters were denied, restricted, or hindered from voting ; poll closures, voter id, intimidation, less early voting, millions removed from voting rolls...

Making arguments about economics, or voter attitudes, by pointing to turnout is much less evident in the election result.

[portlander23]

14. Again, the exit polls

When Clinton loses people of all demographics making under $30k a year- the working poor, it's hard to say economics didn't matter. This isn't to say that economics is the only factor, but we ignore it at our peril. Yes, racists came out for Trump, but in spite of the media narrative, when you look at the exit polls of who didn't show up for Clinton, they look pretty color-blind.

[bigtree]

15. I don't think that's true

from the Guardian:

Of the one in three Americans who earn less than $50,000 a year, a majority voted for Clinton. A majority of those who earn more backed Trump.

Clinton’s lead among non-white voters was substantial, but not enough to make up the difference. It was also less than many anticipated – and less than Barack Obama’s four years previously.

What appears to have made the biggest difference on the night was the turnout for Trump of white voters across the board – of both sexes, almost all ages and education levels, and from mid- and higher income levels.

White voters, who make up 69% of the total, voted 58% for Trump and 37% for Clinton. Non-white voters, who make up 31% of the electorate, voted 74% for Clinton and 21% for Trump.

[portlander23]

17. The Numbers: How Hillary Clinton Lost

The Numbers: How Hillary Clinton Lost
KEVIN DRUM
Mother Jones

The quickest way to get a sense of what happened is to compare the exit polls from 2012 and 2016. What we're looking for is demographic groups that differ from -4% by a significant margin. As it turns out, there aren't very many. Clinton underperformed Obama across the board. She did somewhat better than -4% with seniors, college grads, married voters, and high-income voters. She did worse with low-income voters, union households, and unmarried voters.

Clinton was down across the board slightly up with higher income voters, down with lower income voters. I dunno how you escape a class based critique of the campaign.

[bigtree]

19. you're back to making broad assumptions from overall turnout

...very much more dubious than looking at how she did against her rival in this campaign.

Also, you've shifted (with this article) from talking about 'Obama voters' to including all voters across the board. And, remember, it's those lower income voters (which Hillary won) who voting restrictions overwhelmingly impact.

[portlander23]

20. Nope

All voters across the board is in context of the Obama voters she lost. If Clinton had not lost so much ground with the Obama coalition, aka our side of the isle, she'd be president. There wasn't a surge of support for Trump. If Clinton 2016 was closer to re-election Obama in 2012 (again, not phenom 2008), we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[bigtree]

21. it's just not suprising to me at all that Hillary was less popular than Barack Obama

...making assumptions as to why, is the rub here.

Oh, and there WAS a surge in Trump (white) support in rural precincts in key swing states. That's where the narrative we're discussing about the 'working class is coming from.

[spooky3]

22. Agree. Also, 1) at the current count per Cookpolitical.com, she has almost as many votes as Obama

in 2012, despite much greater voter suppression since 2012, 30 years of unfounded attacks, a much stronger third party challenge this year, etc., with many votes still yet to be counted; 2) a huge factor that has not been acknowledged in this thread is misogyny. As has been documented in many other places, including controlled academic research, many people of both genders have a great deal of difficulty accepting leadership from women.

I'm all for fact-based "postmortem" discussion, but i am very weary of the many "attack threads" in which no data, or highly questionable or incomplete data, are cited to support whatever agenda the poster may have. This does not help us identify the true factors that we need to work on going forward.

[portlander23]

24. No one is denying misogyny or racism

Sure that was a big factor, but so was economic issues. You can't write off Clinton losing ground with all lower income voters across race and gender as misogyny.

[spooky3]

26. If you look at other threads posted here, you will see substantial evidence that the economic issues

analysis is WRONG.

[portlander23]

30. Sure

[bigtree]

29. the problem I have with restricting discussion of postmortem

...when those looking to shape our future agenda are making so many different assumptions about the vote.

I'm also concerned about giving recognition to the contingent of voters who were the most dependable, and that we don't do what we always do and take them for granted by reaching for people who weren't looking for a reason to vote for our party at all.

And ffs, is there ANY candidate who could generate the numbers Barack Obama did? Well, Hillary's popular vote is coming damn close!

[portlander23]

23. We don't need to make assumptions, we have the exit polls

in 2008, Obama won an electoral blowout vs McCain - 365 to 173. The popular vote, not that it counts was > 7 points. 2012 Obama was nowhere as popular as 2008 Obama. He beat Romney 332 to 206, which is down 66 electoral votes. The popular vote was < 4 points. That's a big drop. Unlike 2008, 2012 was a close election:

How Close Was This Election?
Beverly Gage
Slate

There seems to be some confusion about whether or not the United States just witnessed a close election. Perhaps some historical perspective can help: Yes, this was a close election.

Between 1900 and 1999, only five of the 25 presidential elections were decided by fewer than 130 electoral votes. Only three had a popular vote margin smaller than the Obama-Romney contest. It’s a sign of how accustomed we’ve become to razor-thin margins of victory that Obama’s 2.3-percent popular-vote victory seems almost like a rout.

Trump took the electoral college (barring any miracles) 306-232, up by 74, with Clinton leading the popular vote by 1.9%. And this against the least popular candidate in US history. Yes Clinton was never as popular as decisive win 2008 Obama, but she did worse than close call 2012 Obama, and we have a narrow win for Trump, but wider than the win Obama had over Romney.

There's no good story to pull out of these results. Obama lost ground from 2008 to 2012. Clinton lost even more ground with the Obama coalition.

[spooky3]

27. Exit polls as based on self-reports. What you should be relying upon is the actual votes. No one

can do anything more than suggest hypotheses based on exit polls. This has been true as long as exit polls have been conducted.

[portlander23]

31. Wha?

How do you know why someone voted the way they did in a secret ballot? Exit polls are they only measurement we have. Unless you think there's a sampling error or people are lying, I don't get it.

[spooky3]

28. using old data and changing the goalposts -- not a winning argument.

[portlander23]

32. These are 2016 exit polls.

Do you have any 2018 ones you want to share?

[spooky3]

25. This article, written Nov. 9, right out of the gate gets a critical assumption WRONG.

"Once all the votes are counted, it looks like Hillary Clinton will underperform Barack Obama by about 4 percentage points in the national vote. Was this an across-the-board loss, or was it concentrated among certain groups?"

Per Cookpolitical.com, Clinton currently has nearly as many votes as Obama in 2012 (much closer than -4 % pts. projected by the author), and votes in states primarily that favor her (e.g., NY, Calif) are still being counted (and as you know, recounts are ongoing in a few states).

[portlander23]

34. The trends in the exit polls aren't going to change

No one is "self reporting" additional data as votes are counted. Yes tallies will change. The raw number of votes will change. The trends in who reported how they voted and why will not change, and if you think they're wrong, you have a beef with either statistics or methodology.

[MadLinguist]

33. so right!!! where's the class analysis?

this is the relevant factor "But Clinton underperformed Obama among voters of all races who make less than $30,000 per year by an identical margin". Far more than race, class discussion is the taboo, systematically and institutionally throttled as a discussion topic.

[DallasNE]

6. Right, The Deplorables Went For Trump In A Big Way

And it's time to stop calling them the "working class".

[raging moderate]

16. Yes, thank you!

The REAL working class voted mostly for Clinton.

[RAFisher]

18. The term 'working class' is very ironic being Trump won in areas with higher unemployment

I say we call them the lazy unemployable racist class. Too harsh?

[yardwork]

11. Trump won because of bigotry and ignorant, mean fear and resentment.

In other words, we are right to assume that Trump voters are racist pigs.

[DesertFlower]

12. yes. they are racists.