Will economic populism lead Democrats to victory? Senate results should make us skeptical.

[Recursion]

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/27/13716060/senate-democrats-economic-populism

Interestingly enough, in two of those crucial Midwestern states that flipped to Trump, Democratic Senate candidates campaigned on economically populist platforms — but they did notably worse than Hillary Clinton. Russ Feingold underperformed Clinton by 2.4 points in Wisconsin, and Ted Strickland underperformed her by 12.8 points in Ohio. Feingold amassed a populist record of challenging big money and special interests when he was in the Senate, and Strickland harshly condemned trade deals during his campaign against Rob Portman (who served as George W. Bush’s US trade representative).

Meanwhile, the two Democratic Senate candidates in competitive races who outperformed Clinton the most both self-consciously presented a moderate image rather than running as liberal firebrands. In Missouri, Jason Kander overperformed Clinton by 15.9 points, and in Indiana, Evan Bayh did 9.6 points better than her (though they both lost).

Now, there are idiosyncratic factors in all of these races. These candidates all had different opponents, none of whom were named Donald Trump. Kander was a fresh face who was running on a strong anti-corruption platform against a lobbyist-friendly incumbent, Roy Blunt. Bayh seems to have benefited from his past reputation in the state and started off with a huge poll lead that gradually dwindled. Strickland happened to be governor of Ohio during the Great Recession, and was attacked on that record (plus he was generally judged to have run a horrible campaign). And it’s worth remembering that back in the 2012 elections, economic populist Sherrod Brown outperformed Barack Obama by 3 points in Ohio — though Elizabeth Warren underperformed Obama by 15.7 points in Massachusetts.

Still, as Democrats debate whether to follow Bernie Sanders’s advice and move to the left on economics with the goal of winning back working-class white voters, it is surely at least worth noting that the two Senate candidates most identified with that strategy who ran this year did worse than Hillary Clinton despite her much-discussed weaknesses, and the two Senate candidates who tried hardest to frame themselves as moderates did better than her in their respective states.

[shraby]

1. When elections are hacked, there is no longer any rhyme or reason when trying to figure out

what makes sense with what we know.
It's akin to throwing a feather into the wind, and about as productive.

[rwheeler31]

2. Jason Kander was an excellent candidate who kept the

race close right up until the end, a flood of out of state money came in for Blunt. In Missouri you have to run from the center to have any chance.

[radius777]

3. Exactly, I think Feingold's loss was most telling.

If we are to believe the narrative peddled by the berniebot alt-left, white working class voters mainly came out for Trump despite his racism/sexism, and overlooked it because they wanted his populism and anti-establishment vibe.

Yet, these same voters, according to this theory, should have, once given the chance to vote for a non-racist/liberal populist like Feingold, crossed over to vote for him for senate instead of a small-gov't free-trading tea partier like Ron Johnson.

Not only that, but most of these Trump voters voted for establishment GOP senate candidates all across the country.

This election was about white tribal identity, and the party (GOP) they view to stand for those values was the one they supported. Trump rose to power because he shouted out white identity loudly instead of using the typical GOP dog whistles, which the alt-right considers wimpy/cuck compared to Trump, who excites them.

[JI7]

7. and Ron Johnson did better than Trump.

so the candidate who got the most votes was the one who was most pro free trade , pro big business and VERY MUCH the establishment .

[radius777]

8. Exactly, and remember that most of these alt-right Trumpers

were anti-government Tea Partiers a few years ago. "We not racist, jus' mad about da gub'mint." yeah right.

Its why all of this analysis about "economic anxiety" is bullshit (or at least incomplete), and fails to see the underlying truth to all of those movements (including the alt-left, to a lesser extent) which is backlash to the election of the first black president (and potentially the first woman president), and the fact that there are now far more PoC/gays/women etc in higher positions in American society. All of a sudden achieving success became "globalist", "elitist" and bad.

[Garrett78]

9. So did other big TPP proponents, such as Portman in Ohio.

And the rate of re-election for incumbents was even higher than normal, as I mentioned in my essay: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512621513.

Trump didn't offer any substantive positions and I doubt very seriously many of his supporters were sitting around having nuanced discussions about trade or other economic issues. Plus, the "working class whites" narrative suggests that working class POC don't care about economic issues, which is absurd.

Clinton offered a more substantive, accurate and hopeful message on every issue. But for tens of millions of people in the US, racism, sexism, xenophobia, heterosexism and Christian supremacy takes precedence in this increasingly diverse nation.

[Garrett78]

4. Because it's not about economic messaging.

If it was, Democrats would dominate. Clinton and others put forth substantive positions on economics, while Trump makes vague and meaningless remarks.

It's partly the messenger. There can be no doubt that Clinton was victimized by decades of hate (much of it completely irrational and rooted in sexism).

But it's primarily a cultural/social matter. Racism, sexism, xenophobia, heterosexism and Christian supremacy takes precedence for tens of millions of people.

Attempting to reach some of those who never vote would be a much more productive use of time than attempting to reach those who live in an alternate reality.

[mythology]

5. I would argue that the message does play a role

Trump had a great slogan. Simple, easy to remember. Clinton had long detailed plans that wouldn't fit on a bumper sticker. I think the ability to have that short easy to digest bumper sticker approach is helpful. Gore also suffered from being substantially smarter than Bush and it showed at times. Obama on the other hand was much better than McCain or Romney at getting his message out.

It's frustrating that substantive policies lost to the drooling troglodyte, but a lot of those people voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. It's kind of hard to label them as just inherently racist.

[Garrett78]

6. Sure, the message is always important.

But I don't think economic messaging was even remotely close to being a primary reason why people voted for Trump. I think Clinton hate and racism/sexism/xenophobia were the key factors. Voter suppression and FBI interference also impacted the result.

And I don't think Trump's slogan was key to winning people over so much as people inclined to support Trump happen to like simple slogans. Besides, Clinton had an even shorter slogan: "Stronger Together." I don't think either candidate's slogan was the difference between winning and losing.

As for Obama voters supporting Trump, Jamelle Bouie of Slate wrote an article on that topic: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/there_is_no_such_thing_as_a_good_trump_voter.html. And racism isn't the only factor I listed.