Did "the economic message not resonate", or is it that we just didn't want to LIE to them?

[HughBeaumont]

Here's the rub with trying to "understand" a Trump voter.

Their concerns were portrayed as "primarily economic", right?

What I'm gathering from all the political/news commentators and comments sections was that they wanted someone to tell them their jobs are returning, their talents are necessary, and there would be no need for them to get additional skills to improve their lives (even though they seem to have no issue telling minimum wage earners this . . . over and over and over and over again).

Problem is, the phenomenon of job dearth and labor movement was primarily caused by A) Conservative businesspersons acting ON CHOICE to please major shareholders and cost-cut until they're operating threadbare or close entirely and walk away with millions and/or B) Conservatives getting tax breaks and tax cuts from Republican politicians which allowed them to either offshore jobs to cheaper climes or perform stock buybacks and fire their workers.

In short, they wanted someone to LIE to them, and Orange Lincoln Rockwell was that liar.

There was never a chance that ANY politicians could make jobs return, because they generally don't have the power to do that. Greed, automation and offshore outsourcing ain't going to be put back in their tubes. Their plights center around the conservative businessperson doing what a fiscally conservative businessperson does - look out for #1 (and numbers 2-13, depending on how big their boards are).

See, you cannot tell them this, because THOSE Conservative businesspersons are their HEROES. It's the same reason we have to work so painfully hard to try and convince them of our message as opposed to the other side that "middle America" sees as THEIR ideal.

They see themselves as "one lucky break from BEING Donald Trump" rather than "One missed paycheck from living under a bridge".

THAT'S the problem.

[Kolesar]

1. Not sure what your clause in the parenthesis means. Would you please expand on it?

I got hung up on it. Thanks

[HughBeaumont]

4. "2-13" major shareholders on the board of directors, if applicable.

Many in America think "shareholder value" is king and "fiduciary duty" is legally binding. It's actually a corporate CHOICE, not a law.

That's pretty much who Trump is going to care about . . . the major shareholders (i.e. The Wealthy).

[Kolesar]

7. I wanted a "Bud Light"

I meant the reference in paragraph 3.

I learned that Ford Motor Company stock really does not have voting rights. The Ford heirs have preferential stock that has the voting rights. So when they scheme up to spin off Visteon or some other idea, there is no dissent.

[HughBeaumont]

14. If you mean this section -

What I'm gathering from all the political/news commentators and comments sections was that they wanted someone to tell them their jobs are returning, their talents are necessary, and there would be no need for them to get additional skills to improve their lives (even though they seem to have no issue telling minimum wage earners this . . . over and over and over and over again).

That's probably my fault for not wording it clearly enough.

It's a common trope for conservative white workers in positions that involve skill (which also come with generally inadequate pay) on any topic that involves raising the minimum wage to tell minimum wage workers to "SUPERSIZE YER SKILL SET HAW HAW HAW", implying they don't deserve $15 an hour for low skill positions.

They never bother INSTEAD to ask themselves

a) why are we still considering $12-14/hr some extravagant wage reserved for higher skilled labor in 2016?
b) why am I NOT earning more for my SKILLED job?
c) why is "McDonalds" now the new "blue collar work"? How did that come to be?

[Kolesar]

16. Aha! Wage deflation for skilled and semiskilled work

I am enlightened. Thanks

The period of opportunity for all Americans ended right before I entered the job market ~1980. Now that we have to compete with cheaper labor overseas and capital can use electronics and machines to make us obsolete, America is going to have a "third world" fringe to it.

[HughBeaumont]

18. Gee . . . who was about to be President then? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

But hey, let's name buildings and airports after him.

[Kolesar]

19. [x] Like for your post

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. They want to be lied to.

Many jobs aren't coming back.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

9. Or if they DO stay/come back

what is their quality? What will the conditions be like? Trump "dazzled" everybody with the so-called "brilliance" of the Carrier deal where (only) 800 people at Carrier are going to get to keep their jobs....for now, but Hoosier taxpayers are now going to basically be paying for their salaries, the Unions were totally cut out of the deal, and Trump has promised a friendlier regulatory environment for them (which certainly won't benefit any of the workers). Corporations may be more enticed to keep jobs here in the US or maybe even bring them back from other countries but under what conditions? Maybe if they are able to cut corners like pay their workers minimum wage (or below) and they are less regulated but will that be good enough for a majority of workers? Will that be safe for them?

[SubjectiveLife78]

3. That's the rub of it

What I'm gathering from all the political/news commentators and comments sections was that they wanted someone to tell them their jobs are returning, their talents are necessary, and there would be no need for them to get additional skills to improve their lives (even though they seem to have no issue telling minimum wage earners this . . . over and over and over and over again).

Each side likes to do this to the other side. We're all affected by it, but each side doesn't listen to the lower classes of the other side. The black minimum wage earner? Eh, get some skills even though you probably start out at a different spot, or get out. The white working class wage earner? Eh, you had your time, get some new skills, or get out.

What we need is someone who will tell more and more people that they're really less and less necessary in every way, shape, and form, while at the same time getting all of those unnecessary people, from both sides, to vote for them.

We need to get Americans to understand that we're less than 5% of the human population. The sun does not rise and shine because of us. The same way white men have to accept that the world doesn't revolve around them, Americans in general need to get that too.

Now, who is going to vote for the raving lunatic that...wait for it...actually tells the truth?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. But.....but.....that's making America less......"exceptional"

How dare you suggest that Americans be.......just like every other human being on this planet!

[SubjectiveLife78]

20. That's not an easy sell for anyone

We still have the idea of "American jobs" in our heads. We still get upset when America ranks a little too low in our opinion on some international list for happiness, or a childhood reading index, or whatever. We still have those American ideals we have to live up to.

If Americans are just supposed to be like every other human being on the planet, then why bother having this abstract concept we call America?

I don't imagine anyone would get elected if they didn't tell us we're special. There's no winning campaign of, "ok, look, you're going to have to work much harder, with no guarantee it's going to pay off", out there.

[HughBeaumont]

15. Gainfully employed workers buying products and services isn't necessary for Capitalism?

Search me how you connect THAT "A" to "B", but have at it.

[SubjectiveLife78]

21. There's no easy answer to that question

Things are changing. Whatever it is that we call capitalism is changing. How we get from A to B, or A to Z, let alone A to Y7fhBB6ep, I don't know.

Humans make it all up as we go along. There's no grand plan. We do what works, or seems to work, in the moment, and sort of have a rough idea for tomorrow. Then tomorrow gets here, and there are different variables in the equation, and then we have to figure it out again.

Gainfully employed workers buying products and services isn't necessary for Capitalism?

Every word in that sentence is up for debate at this point. What does gainfully mean in the coming years? What does employed mean? Workers? Buying? Products? We even have to wonder what the definition of isn't is.

The world keeps spinning either way, so whatever is coming is going to come. It'll be an interesting rest of the century. Plus all the rest of time after that.

[mercuryblues]

5. No.

We did not lie o them. Trump did and I am willing to bet they know this and don't give a fuck.

The I voted for trump because of the economy, and he is a bid'ness man, crowd are full of shit.

They know he has not paid his sub-contractors and they had to sue to even get 1/2 their due.

They know he has bankrupted casinos. With at least 4 or 5 more bankruptcies to his credit.

They know he offshores his merchandise.

They know he owes a lot more money than he is worth.

They know he owes TRUssia a lot of money.

They know several of his business endeavors were shams to fleece the middle class out of money.

They know all this and say they think he will be better for the economy? He'll bring jobs back, just not his own factories.

So what could possibly the real reason they voted for him?

I am going with build a wall, deport them all. Ban on Muslims entering the USA. Register Muslims with the government.

[Trekologer]

6. They voted for him because of the R next to his name

Republicans are all about with winning and have no shame about it. Their base would vote for a flaming bag of dog poop if it had an R next to it. Sure he was able to pull in some disillusioned voters who weren't likely to have voted in past elections but let's not go overboard with thinking there was some kind of Trump revolution. The 2016 election result was because we didn't get our voters out. We need to focus on that more than trying to understand the average Trump voter.

[Kolesar]

8. [x] Like for your post

[smirkymonkey]

10. They see themselves as "one lucky break from BEING Donald Trump" rather than "One missed paycheck

from living under a bridge". I can't think of a way to say it better. This is so spot on.

[LonePirate]

12. A small portion of his voters was motivated by economics. The supermajority was motivated by bigotry

His winning margins in FL, MI, NC, PA and WI were made possible by exceptionally large, if not historic, turnout in rural areas. Those people were motivated by bigotry, not by economics.

Now if you want to say their ignorance in general - a primary cause of bigotry - was responsible, then I could certainly believe that as well.

[HughBeaumont]

13. Maybe that's why "primarily economic" was in quotes.

The rest of us know the real reasons - racism and straight-up misogyny.

I'm merely trying to be nice.

[Madam45for2923]

17. Yes a BIG spoonful of LIES with a big helping of RACISM...& Tah-Dah... Good to Go!