Why Trump Won: Pundits and Press Still Missing the Big Picture

[davsand]

CNN’s Fareek Zakaria’s recent explanation for why Trump won has been getting a lot of play. It’s similar to explanations most of the other pundits have been pushing for some time now, and it sets up the Democrats in general and progressives in particular for more loses in the future.

The conventional take on Trump’s victory

Most pundits see it something like this: The Democrats lost because Trump appealed to the angry white voter, and he used a demagogic mixture of xenophobia, racism, fear and hate to accomplish this.

Mr. Zakaria, the mainstream pundits and even the Democratic Party have also finally recognized what Thomas Frank warned about prior to the election – the fact that the Party’s abandonment of middle class and working Americans who formed the base of the New Deal for a strategy designed to appeal to the economically and educationally “elite,” set it up for the loss. In the words of Zakaria, "The election of Donald Trump is really a kind of class rebellion against people like us, educated professionals who live in cities, who have cosmopolitan views about things.”

Full article here:


https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/08/13/why-trump-won-pundits-and-press-still-missing-big-picture?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork

[Matthew28]

1. For a few reasons

1. Free trade and outsourcing is not popular and people really have been hurt by it.
2. White old men feel like they're losing their "say". So they see Trump and feel more connected with his message of reversing that. Yes, a lot of them are racist, sexist and nasty in their world view but this made far easier because of the economy.

The old white men and the union moderate voted for Trump is currently being screwed over but this was why Trump won Pa, Mich and Wis. He message worked.

What democrats need to do is nominate an economic progressive that will point to how Trump lied about bringing back jobs and will push for a new new Deal that will benefit everyone.

Democrats need to focus on economic issues, minimum wage and a "general" human rights for all attitude that doesn't give the idea that anyone is being excluded. Anything else will inflame the white males and their voter share will rise sadly against us.

[LonePirate]

9. More Americans have been helped by free trade than have been hurt by it.

Massive American industries have benefitted from it including: aerospace, agriculture, automobile, technology and others. American consumers have also benefitted greatly from it as well.

Unfortunately, free trade is exploited by those wanting to divide Americans by focusing solely on the negatives - and yes there are some - but those negatives are far outweighed by the positives.

Also, the white male vote was maximized in 2016. It's not going to go any higher. Angry, racist white men turned out in massive numbers to vote for the idiot in the White House who sold them empty promises along with all of the hate. While that hate may persist, the empty promises will be discovered as the jobs he vowed would return will in face never return. While those voters may not suddenly vote for Democrats, they are likely to stay home on Election Day instead of voting for 45 again. That still helps us.

The last thing we need to do is to appeal to white, male, straight, racist, high school graduates at the expense of everyone else in the Democratic coalition.

[delisen]

18. I think it is like generals fighting the last war.

People don't vote only on economic issues. Economists went off track a long time ago when they pushed toe theory that the marketplace was always rational.

Voters are multidimensional.

The whole "progressive" analysis of election 2016-which was rushed out day after election and before numbers were crunched and more facts were provided-has been flawed. It was trotted our to fit a favored philosophy and to advance that philosophy-which is not progressivism-but instead one particular form of progressivism.

That Dictatorship of the Proletariat thing never really worked out-in fact it was a disaster.

Articles on workers and economics that don't even acknowledge the automation revolution that is about to explode just do not speak to our condition.

John Atcheson could do us all a favor if he moved beyond talking about "the working class" as though it were comprised of "the other" and made a personal five year plan to join it before he continues analyzing it from his elitist perch.

[brush]

22. It's all BS and ignores the elephant in the room. Clinton had it won despite the Russian...

bots and Assange and Bernie bro third party humpers, COMEY'S LETTER is what swung the election to trump.

All the pundits and talking heads, even the ones allegedly on our side, seem to not want to touch that hugely glaring reason.

Hillary's poll numbers plunged after the Oct. 28th letter.

[StevieM]

25. Excellent post. Comey's letter didn't marginally affect the race--it completely turned the race on

its head. The effect was dramatic.

And that is on top of the damage from his July press conference. Not to mention the absurd decision to have the FBI launch a full scale investigation, and make it public knowledge, to begin with.

[Eliot Rosewater]

2. he didnt win

[jaysunb]

8. Thank you !

And the continued narrative stating he "won" only reinforces the idea that coming second can and was altered by some other rule, only empowers those that make a mockery of true one man one vote idea.
Those with the w/ a platform that shapes public opinions should repeat this in context to every statement about why this man lives in the Peoples House .

[edhopper]

36. YES

and without voter suppression, the Russians and Comey, he wouldn't be Pres.

[davsand]

56. He did win. Unfortunately, he's in the White house right now.

Not sayin I'm ok with how he got there or with anything going on right now, but by the one yardstick that counts, he won. It sucks. Ain't nobody happy about it. Unless we want a repeat/continuation of this entire mess we Dems need to sort our stuff out now.

I put this article up and deliberately walked away because I wanted to see how the DU folks responded to it. I've had a sense for quite some time that there's a lot of frustration at work, and a whole lot of anger still roiling about--so much in fact--that I'm wondering if Dems are going to be able to focus on what we need to do to prevent letting the rotting mango have another term. We need to gain ground in the House and Senate in this upcoming election, and I'm worried about our ability to do that much.

If our party can't even agree that we need to do something to attract voters--maybe not what this article suggests, but ANYTHING--we are all well and truly screwn.

Eliot, I'm not throwing down with you or anybody else in here. Yours was the first instance of the "but Hillary really won" type of commentary I saw. It appears here in several cases. I'm hoping this discussion can turn to a constructive look at what we can all do as a party to move forward.

Peace.


Laura

[BigmanPigman]

3. Why do I feel like I am being as prejudiced as the GOP

when I say and think that "older, white men" are the enemy in this country? Am I as bad as they are by stereo-typing them or is this fact?

[NRaleighLiberal]

4. Russia. Theft. Period.

[delisen]

5. This is amusing. "Here come the gnats'

once again, to rage against "neo-liberalism" and denounce the Democratic Party for its elitism.

So we get attacked from two sides on the elitism-from the Republican Party and the fervent anti-neo-liberals (those who see people and politics only through a lens of unidimensional economic theory.

The above screed ends in a threat that a third party will have to be formed by "progressives"if we democrats don't end our elitist ways (and it will be our own fault!).

I feel like I am being lectured to by some fat cat coddled member of the old Politburo.

With friends like these we don't need enemies.

[LonePirate]

14. Here's what I find interesting (hypocritical) about 45's voters who cite economics for their vote.

These people famously tout personal responsibility yet they feel it is the government's fault their high school diploma isn't good enough for a job any more.

Once upon a time, you could take an auto repair class in high school and learn a trade that was good for decades. Those days are over given the technologically advances engines and systems in cars nowadays. However the people with those mindsets haven't realized this for some reason.

[delisen]

15. Good Point. and there has really been decades

since this change began to happen.

[Yavin4]

42. Also, they decry global trade and then buy a 4K TV at Best Buy for a $2000.00

Or stand in line for the new iPhone. The fact that inflation has been kept so low is largely due to automation and global trade.

[Hoyt]

6. Totally disagree. Clinton told the truth to the white wing middle class, and they were

too stupid, racist, bigoted, xenophobic, scared, dismissive of people not as hateful as them, etc., so they voted for Trump. If the economy is doing reasonably well in 2020, they will vote for him again.

We see Trump for what he is. They don't care. If he doesn't help them in coal country and manufacturing localities, they'll make sure everyone else hurts too.

[JI7]

12. They also had no problem voting for pro free trade republicans

[Me.]

7. More Common Dreams Nonsense

1 an hour these days

[jaysunb]

11. +1 n/t

[greatauntoftriplets]

38. Careless writing and/or editing in that article as well.

It's Fareed, not Fareek. I tend to discount articles that get things like that wrong.

[Tobin S.]

10. This is the key to the article:

"The pundits and the Democrats seem to think the solution to the Trump problem lies in convincing some segment of the 26.1 percent who voted for him to switch sides. In reality, the solution is to get a greater share of the 40 percent who have essentially dropped out of politics to show up."

That will require progressive New Deal type policies.

[delisen]

55. Actually those who want to win over Trump voters

are those who claim to be progressives or the progressive "wing"

[JI7]

13. Thomas frank doesn't see racism and other bigotry. The trump supporters tell us everyday

Why they voted for him. They arent protesting economic policy. They are yelling out jews will nor replace them and attacking black people for peaceful protest.

[delisen]

16. Exactly.

[emulatorloo]

30. Well said

[Adrahil]

17. This is fucking ridiculous.

The idea that voters see the GrOPers are representing middle and working-class voters is absurd. Anyone who believes is a goddammed fool.

[delisen]

20. or has too much leisure time in which

to engage in fantasies. I suggest a 12 month 10 hour hour a day job at a rural 7/11 before he writes another word.

[stevenleser]

24. Its among the most stupid attempt at logic ever and goes like this...

People were upset the rich are getting richer and the poor and middle class are being left behind so they voted for a billionaire who promises an even stronger dose of the policies that brought that about in the first place.

Common Dreams, JPR and that ilk are trying to sell that mound of BS.

[emulatorloo]

31. It all boils down to "evil Democrats" and shoring up the "trump elected because economic anxiety"

Nonsense sold by pundits right after the election.

While we know from exit polling that people concerned about jobs and the economy voted for the Dem nominee.

Gaslighting from CommonDreams, and nonsense from Fareek Zakaria and Frank, imho.

[Garrett78]

33. Did any of you actually read the article? Because that isn't what it was saying.

It wasn't about who voted for Trump. Rather, it was about those who don't vote.

[stevenleser]

39. Yes, we read it. We're familiar with the wishful thinking.

"All those people who don't vote, they would vote if we nominate exactly the type of politician I like"

I wish people would grow up and realize how self-serving that kind of thinking is. I expect it from people on the right, not people on the left.

[Garrett78]

43. Yet so many in this thread are suggesting the article is about Trump voters. It isn't.

And I don't think the argument put forth is as simple as you're making it out to be.

Clearly, the Democratic Party isn't doing things right and clearly neoliberalism is a real thing. Voter suppression and gerrymandering alone (2 things, by the way, the DNC hardly ever talks about) doesn't explain why Republicans have the White House, US House, US Senate, a clear majority of governorships and a clear majority of state legislative bodies. In other words, they have more power than at any point in modern history...in spite of becoming increasingly unhinged.

At some point, it has to dawn on folks that the party needs to make some major changes. Simply waiting/hoping for the Republican Party to implode is not sufficient.

And, no, I don't agree with Sanders and others on the left that "identity politics" is the problem (after all, it's Republicans who foster and exploit bigotry--absent racism, that party wouldn't even be viable). Sanders and his ilk are far too dismissive of racism, perhaps because Sanders hails from the whitest state in the US. If anything, Democrats need to spend a lot more time addressing racism, sexism, etc. The author of the article in the OP may disagree, though he didn't really say, and I'm not 100% behind the author...however, many in this thread are completely misrepresenting what he wrote.

[stevenleser]

57. They are ignoring the wishful thinking I referenced above

because it’s juvenile and tiresome.

Non-self-aware people all over the political spectrum believe the exact same thing. All a politician has to do is be exactly likehas to do to get the non voters to vote is to be exactly what they want that politician to be.

[Garrett78]

32. I agree with you, but that isn't what the article suggested.

The article was about how Trump voters make up a pretty small percentage of the electorate, and that what the Democratic Party needs to do is reverse the downward trend in turnout by doing more to appeal to those who feel like the system has failed them. It's the 40+ percent who don't vote with whom the article is concerned (a portion of that due to race-based voter suppression efforts, which Dems don't make enough of a stink about).

[Adrahil]

50. The Democratic Party has been proposing policies that benefit..

Middle Class and Working voters consistently.

Expansions to health insurance programs... infrastructure programs, green energy, economic transformation... all those proposals have been there. They get very little attention!

But the news media has been more interested in covering the Benghazi and email "scandals."

Policy is boring. Give us dirty laundry!

Hopefully, after the 2016 election fiasco, they've learned not feed false equivalency stories.

[lovemydogs]

19. I strongly believe many voted for Trump due to "Me Too' Bandwagon

The way the press was always talking Trump, pumping him up and making the news the Trump show (many admit that they did not think people would take Trump seriously and found it fun in an otherwise boring primary), alot of people, those who don't pay much attention and have no strong views, jumped on the Trump Bandwagon.
People tend to follow what they think is popular so they are not 'left out'.
The press gave the impression he was a rock star and these people just went along with ity.

[bettyellen]

40. Yeah and that's why the press blames Dems- they did this to Dems and then blame us. Bullshit.

[Awsi Dooger]

21. Stupid article

Every cycle the lazy ignorant writers focus on low turnout among certain blocks. They cherry pick this group and that group and then assign victory if you magically inspire those groups to turn out in droves, while leaving everything else the same. Well isn't that wonderful? Next year I'll make sure my favorite NFL team drafts all the best players.

Elections are all about preference. Hillary had low upside to begin with. She was never going to earn 52 or 53%. Every spreadsheet analysis I used with my own models had her between 48 and 51% of the popular vote, with 49% the plurality outcome. That's basically where it ended up. Obama steadily infuriated working class white voters and by 2014 they were determined to take it out on Democrats. Hillary inherited that wrath but it would have attached to any Democrat.

As always, situational influence is not a strength of the population or the media analysis. It was not a favorable environment for a Democrat to begin with after two consecutive cycles in the White House. The public and especially the swing voters are impatient and ready to try the other side. They have long forgotten or set aside how awful it was with a Republican in office for 8 years. That's why the independent voters preferred Trump, and that was just enough to push him over the electoral top. Right now Democrats are favored toward 2018 only because those independents have soured and shifted against Trump, who still holds his base and Republican loyalty at same rate as a year ago.

I've always argued that you need a charismatic teflon candidate when it is an unfavorable cycle, like facing an incumbent or after 8+ years of your side holding the White House. I made that one of my primary themes as soon as I joined this site in fall 2002. I have to laugh when nobody differentiates from needs of one cycle to the next, even though the cycles could not be more divergent from a situational standpoint. Rachel Maddow is among the many who have no clue in that regard. Hillary would have been ideal in 2008, with the wind at our back after 8 years of Bush and the final three stuck at low approval post-Katrina. You don't need personal popularity when the cycle favors your side to begin with. Hillary would have cruised and our party would have benefited immensely via representation of a strong female in the White House. Then you have the more charismatic Obama unscathed and waiting in the wings for 2016. He would have won and the world would be completely different right now.

Instead we were dense enough to try it the other way, and it's not surprising at all that it narrowly fell short. Once Hillary was on tap for 2016 it always set up as a likely narrow defeat. I didn't intend to pay much attention until Republicans nominated Trump. That choice gave Hillary an opportunity but like most matters everything tends to go back to the beginning and the long term big picture outlook prevailed.

Trump is in far greater shape toward 2020 than we'd like to pretend. Situational influence is most prevalent in favor of an incumbent whose party has been in power only one term. When that scenario is at play, the day to day stuff is mostly irrelevant crappiola, even though the media and pundits are too dense to understand as much.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

23. K&R. Wisdom. n/t

[StevieM]

26. The polls, prior to the Comey intervention, tell a different story. And that was even after

the July press conference.

Prior to Comey's last minute stunt HRC was looking at a huge win, possibly hitting 375 electoral votes.

[Garrett78]

34. "Independents" are independent in name only.

Studies make it clear that "independents" are more attached to a particular party than partisans of past decades. People just like referring to themselves as "independent." The vast majority are strongly partisan one way or the other.

[MichMan]

49. Good analysis IMO

IMO, that is one of the most reasoned analysis of the election I have seen here.

There has only been one instance in my lifetime where the same party won three elections in a row.

Add to that it appeared there was a general backlash against "dynasties" as many voters just didn't want another Clinton or Bush again. That is why there was little support for Jeb in the primary.

Considering the above and Hillary's unfavorables, I think she was fortunate to be running against some one as weak as Trump.

[StevieM]

27. I disagree. This was Comey's election, from start to finish. (eom)

[lunasun]

28. Again?

[emulatorloo]

29. Someone explain why I should care about lame-ass pundits Fareek Zakaria and Thomas Frank?

I've never found Frank to be insightful.



If CommonDreams dislikes pundits why are they promoting pundits to shore up the "economic anxiety" myth and to lie about Democrats?

[Garrett78]

35. It's as if hardly anyone actually read the article.

It isn't about who voted for Trump. The focus is on those who didn't vote.

I agree with criticizing the "economic anxiety" myth, but that isn't what the article is about.

[bettyellen]

41. The economic anxiety nonsense propped up his theories.... so the rest of it is the same old nonsense

We heard before there was detailed polling. It's repackaging discredited information.

Amazing how everyone who espouses this crap has nothing to say about the higher tax policies which would cripple the kind candidacy they recommend. Their tailoring the theory to push their preferred narrative.

And independents are more reliable one party voters than those who choose a party. Why do people post such inaccurate and outdated crap here?

[Garrett78]

44. His article wasn't about Trump voters or their purported "economic anxiety."

It was about nonvoters.

I'm not sure what you were saying with your last paragraph. Are you arguing against the point I made in another post about how the vast majority of "independents" are extremely partisan? If so, I'll gladly post several links to articles that support what I wrote. I've posted them before and can do so again if you like.

[bettyellen]

45. The article literally begins talking about Trump voters, lol...

And the non voter numbers got skewed with anmuxh higher percentage of people (in key areas) who were denied their vote.
And yes, historically "independent" voters tend to stick with one party despite that moniker. And I know there are a lot of young new independents. They haven't figured out what he vast difference between the parties.

[Garrett78]

46. Yes, to point out the flaws in the conventional wisdom. But that's not who the article is about.

After criticizing the conventional wisdom, the article reads, "This election was less about who voted, than it was about who didn’t and why." That's the crux of the article. It goes on to point out that Trump had the support of just 26.1% of eligible voters.

[bettyellen]

59. It goes on to ignore voter suppression and Comey and rip Dems to shreds with bullshit...

In order to push its preferred narrative. It's literally all over the place, you'd only be swayed if you already belived in the premise - Dems suck- and it's conclusion, so called "progressives" are the ones who can GOTV.
I'm calling bulkshit on both those ideas. In fact I think it's this kind of "Dems suck" bullsht that helped suppress the vote.

[edhopper]

37. Hillary won

The voters never supported him.

[Willie Pep]

47. People need to stop with the "Hillary won" stuff

Continuing to say it won't make it true. Clinton knew she had to win the electoral vote and not the popular vote so just because she won the popular vote does not make her the winner of the presidential election. It would be like a football team losing on points but claiming they won because they had more yardage or time of possession. And even if you think Trump somehow cheated to win the election you have to face the fact that the Democratic Party has been losing badly in Congress and at the state level since 2010. You can't blame Comey or the Russians for those losses.

The Democratic Party has been trying to put together a coalition of non-whites and affluent professionals and it is not working. For one thing, those demos are concentrated in certain states and metro areas so there are huge sections of the country where the Democratic Party is practically dead or on life support. These are mostly white, rural states and because our federal system gives these states disproportionate representation in politics we cannot abandon them.

Continuing to think that we can win by attracting more affluent suburbanites is a bad strategy. Where were all of those moderate suburban Republicans who were going to win the election for Clinton? Oh yeah, they mostly came home and voted for Trump because tax cuts and economics are still the biggest issues for that demographic. But all of the hate gets thrown on the rednecks and hillbillies of flyover country.

I agree with the article that the Democrats need to do a better job putting together a broad, multiracial working-class coalition, although there is room for debate as to how to go about doing that. And yes, "free trade" hurt many people in the United States, particularly workers without college degrees. Really it is not "free trade" that we practice but selective protectionism.

http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/democratic-party-policies-actually-hurt-the-working-class

http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/u-s-pursues-selective-protectionism-not-free-trade

[Lurks Often]

54. Stop trying to interject facts & common sense!!

[DFW]

48. Stalin had the big picture

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."

Then as now.

[dlk]

51. More and More Evidence Shows the Vote Was Hacked

This fact is getting swept under the rug by the MSM.

[mythology]

58. Nonsesnse. There is zero evidence votes were changed

[KG]

52. this article is crap. it doesn't mention susan saradon at all!

[Joe941]

53. Russian hacks. Stolen votes. The Bernie effect.