Privileged people calling less privileged people "stupid" doesn't seem to be working...

[coley]

And plenty of misogynists too. Probably the majority of Trumpeters violently hate women.

Perhaps "hate" is to strong a word? more likely it's they object to the idea of a woman in authority.

 

[coley]

Democrats, Trump, and the Ongoing, Dangerous Refusal to Learn the Lesson of Brexit

This is interesting; while I am not sure I am convinced Bernie would have won, it lucidly explains why Clinton lost with reference to both income, institutions *and* racism.... and I think it's pretty persuasive

Very interesting and largely 'nails it' whoever can't agree with his opinion Brexit and Trump are disasters, the latter? Yes, the former, not really.

 

[coley]

Yes, but all this stuff about elites being given a good kicking really is laughable; have they not seen who has won and who (will) governs on who's behalf on both sides of the Atlantic?

Fair point, but May seems to have taken some heed ;re the Brexit vote, Cameron's and Osbourne's policies have largely been ditched.

 

[coley]

Doesn't change much wrt brogdale's post. He will govern on whose behalf? It will be interesting to see how he handles not being able to do practically any of what he's promised to do even if he wanted to cos he doesn't have the power to do it. Someone will be blamed, no doubt, and that's where it could get very nasty indeed.

Will he start distancing himself from the KKK and other racist white supremacist groups who's support he seemed to enjoy?
The premature ejaculation of our own home grown racists following Brexit was rapidly snuffed out, I suspect any moves to control the 'exuberance' of similar ( but much stronger and more politically connected groups) in the US will meet with much more 'robust' resistance.
Christ onna crutch, it was bad enough being black under a supposedly 'democratic' administration, got a horrible feeling the wheels are going to fall off big time with the election of this pile of Shyte.

 

[coley]

Yet the consequences of realisation on the part of the electorate could well look the same, and draw similar responses from the deep state.

"he needs to have been blocked by someone or a group of someones - a rich and powerful group of someones identified with the old corrupt elite he came to power to sweep away"

Horribly familiar

 

[CrabbedOne]

So Trump's vote was weakest in the lower income deciles who tend not to vote anyway. Clinton failed to mobilise the same cross class coalition Obama brought out. It seems in the rust belt Blue Collar voters flocked away from the Dems to a grumpy uncle figure promising change in the wooliest of terms in a way they didn't when faced with the choice of another hope monger Obama. A stiffly liberal President who can be charismatic and is rather popular but is often seen as divisive. Trump's voters are mostly the fairly comfortable GOP base; the squeezed middle in a rich country that' rode out of the economic crisis far faster than the UK. However often by working damned hard. And these folk are often mobilised by culture warfare, the petty struggles over identity that liberal America has generally been winning. Actually they often may not be well educated but these are certainly privileged people but even the sleekest of them just have not been feeling it to their satisfaction. And what's perhaps more surprising is Trump's high dislike numbers didn't hurt Senate and Congressional races much. That means Trump gets to pack the Supreme Court with rightwing judges that will shape American life long after he has retired to a life of leisurely groping.

What Septics earn looks a lot better if you work it out in Sterling than it used to in Dubya's day.

Let's see how the dollar goes under Trump.

 

[butchersapron]

Does it?

How many more "shock results" are we going to need to get this?

Best piece i've read on this thus far - despite the last minute collapse into sort of advocating a different way of doing politics that still looks like it will revolve around them - the rest before that it is well worth the read, and yes it does do this through an analysis of this election but can't be helped right now:

Logging Out

November 8, 2016 – we may remember this as the day that the liberal elite of the American coasts learned of a world outside its Facebook feed. The cohesion of their worldview was ruptured by the maps that split the nation and the liberal imaginary in two, the very cartography that had become a hallmark of that imaginary: blue fringes separated by a vast landscape of red, an unknown continent of resentment, nationalism, family values, and firearms.

For the months running up to this upset, the liberal worldview attempted to maintain its unity, portraying the residents of the Rust Belt as dupes of an absurd, spectacular machine. They had been swayed by the ravings of a buffoon who appealed to their most ignorant, reprehensible prejudices. Yet the rational and literate among us, this narrative assumed, could not possibly resist the allure of a pantsuit, an elegant and professional uniform of the American future for the cosmopolitan and enlightened liberal who prefers drone strikes to militias. Backed by a tremendous war chest, an arsenal of celebrities, and a claim to represent love itself, this exemplary liberal subject would determine the course of the election. Its votes would outnumber those of the dupes; it would see itself reflected in the White House, to carry on the legacy of the University of Chicago professor.

There are many reasons for this bizarre outcome, religion and social values among them. But there is a deep, drastic failure in the identitarian strategy to mobilize its very own constituency – one which has its obverse in Trump’s extraordinarily successful white-nationalist identity politics. With the demographic shifts in the United States, Trump’s anti-immigrant racism should have destroyed him from the beginning. Yet the Clinton campaign managed to convince many non-white voters to stay home, and some to vote for the candidate endorsed by the KKK. There is no question that white racism contributed massively to Trump’s success; but to combat racism in this country, we will have to rethink an anti-racist strategy that has served mostly to diversify the professional-managerial class

During the election, we saw the same dynamic. Some of the most significant sectors of the ruling bloc lined up behind Clinton: elements from the military, CIA, big capital, mainstream media, and Wall Street. Influential Republicans, from Colin Powell to Glenn Beck, said they’d vote Democrat. The Clinton camp had money, infrastructure, networks, and a vast, experienced ground game. Trump had nothing in comparison, despite winning a majority of the wealthiest voters. Major sectors of the ruling bloc had chosen Clinton – and yet, despite the odds, they lost.

 

[Dogsauce]

Record turnout in early voting anyway, and in California, not that it would have made a lot of difference there.

Latino voter turnout could break records in California

There were a lot of these headlines, and I do wonder if this provided motivation for a greater turnout of Trump supporters, and whether this was the intent of running these stories, especially with the (false) narrative of voter fraud in minority communities already in play.

 

[brogdale]

Best piece i've read on this thus far - despite the last minute collapse into sort of advocating a different way of doing politics that still looks like it will revolve around them - the rest before that it is well worth the read, and yes it does do this through an analysis of this election but can't be helped right now:

Logging Out

Yep, good...and rare to see this sort of analysis...

To be sure, it has opened a space for a right-wing extremism that should put all those who care about justice on alert. Yet at the same time, we see that the ruling bloc is not so omnipotent, not so monolithic. On the Democratic side, the establishment crushed the Bernie Sanders campaign. But on the Republican side, Trump secured the nomination by taking advantage of the wide and incoherent field.

Of course, this fragmentation is not the same as weakness – the ruling bloc will adapt, will maintain the existing structures of property and power, and will likely profit handsomely while continuing to repress working people. But it nevertheless shows that the divisions within the bloc are more severe than we thought, and that the ruling bloc’s overall ability to steer the course of U.S. politics is not as firm as we feared.

That chimes with the likes of Streeck who are promoting the notion that capital's political elite do not know how to engineer their way out of this current, on-going crisis and that the strategic divisions in their panicked reactions are becoming clearer.

 

[J Ed]

Yep, good...and rare to see this sort of analysis...

​

That chimes with the likes of Streeck who are promoting the notion that capital's political elite do not know how to engineer their way out of this current, on-going crisis and that the strategic divisions in their panicked reactions are becoming clearer.

Anyone who spends five minutes looking through the leaked Podesta e-mails understands that these people do not know WTF is going on.

 

[killer b]

despite the last minute collapse into sort of advocating a different way of doing politics that still looks like it will revolve around them

Almost every recent piece of analysis I've read that attempts to advocate some sort of solution ends up in a similar kind of flop TBH, even if it's been otherwise decent. No-one seems to have a clue wtf to do.

 

[brogdale]

Anyone who spends five minutes looking through the leaked Podesta e-mails understands that these people do not know WTF is going on.

I heard Streeck lecture again the other night, and at one point he alighted on the (genuine) debates that the elites have entered into regarding 'helicopter £' as a last resort. He said that you can tell that they've lost the plot completely when their debate centres upon the question of whether, once the notes 'have hit the ground', the people would use them to pay off their debt or fulfill their 'social duty to consume'.

 

[J Ed]

I heard Streeck lecture again the other night, and at one point he alighted on the (genuine) debates that the elites have entered into regarding 'helicopter £' as a last resort. He said that you can tell that they've lost the plot completely when their debate centres upon the question of whether, once the notes 'have hit the ground', the people would use them to pay off their debt or fulfill their 'social duty to consume'.

I saw that he was speaking, do you know if it was recorded?

 

[brogdale]

I saw that he was speaking, do you know if it was recorded?

Yes, both LSE & PERC reckon they're going to put it out as a podcast but neither have yet. Verso might possibly have asked them not to for a while during which the great man continues to flog the product!

 

[J Ed]

Lots of vox pops on the news from people in America who seem to think the problem is 'white men' and they state that openly. The people saying this are almost exclusively white. What a grossly alienating way of doing politics, if you wanted someone to lose elections or other political contests and actions you would tell them to say things like that.

 

[Yossarian]

There were a lot of these headlines, and I do wonder if this provided motivation for a greater turnout of Trump supporters, and whether this was the intent of running these stories, especially with the (false) narrative of voter fraud in minority communities already in play.

Nah, all the Latino turnout stories were coming from anti-Trump papers, which is all of them except the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the KKK Crusader, and the National Enquirer. "Newspaper endorsements don't mean jack shit" is another lesson from this election.

 

[bimble]

"There is no question that white racism contributed massively to Trump’s success; but to combat racism in this country, we will have to rethink an anti-racist strategy that has served mostly to diversify the professional-managerial class." says that article above.
Wonder what that means, what this new ant-racist strategy would look like.

 

[brogdale]

"There is no question that white racism contributed massively to Trump’s success; but to combat racism in this country, we will have to rethink an anti-racist strategy that has served mostly to diversify the professional-managerial class." says that article above.
Wonder what that means, what this new ant-racist strategy would look like.

I would have thought that 'what it means' is pretty obvious; that the liberal elite see 'affirmative action' in their own workplaces (bubble) and assume that such 'progressive' improvement applies across the piece.

 

[chilango]

Best piece i've read on this thus far - despite the last minute collapse into sort of advocating a different way of doing politics that still looks like it will revolve around them - the rest before that it is well worth the read, and yes it does do this through an analysis of this election but can't be helped right now:

Logging Out

It occurs to me that the "logging out" they advocate is something I (accidentally) did a few years back when I gradually stopped doing activist stuff and looked around and realised that none of my contemporaries social were activists (or even Political) anymore either.

A break or rupture confirmed when I moved back here, and didn't (Urban aside) plug back into my old networks.

Anyone that's known me on here for the duration might notice how that's really changed my arguments.

I still "have the same politics" but but it manifests in a radically different way now.

I'd argue that this "logging out" is something more should do.

Abandon your vehicles not your destination!

(Sorry, a pretty wooly post I know , but...)

 

[chilango]

I've asked this before, but as it's appearing on several threads now...

...if you're arguing the result can be explained by the fact it was racist/sexist/white men (whatever - racist, anti-immigrants in the case of Brexit) voting on those grounds, the what do you propose to do to win next time around?

 

[Pickman's model]

So Trump's vote was weakest in the lower income deciles who tend not to vote anyway. Clinton failed to mobilise the same cross class coalition Obama brought out. It seems in the rust belt Blue Collar voters flocked away from the Dems to a grumpy uncle figure promising change in the wooliest of terms in a way they didn't when faced with the choice of another hope monger Obama. A stiffly liberal President who can be charismatic and is rather popular but is often seen as divisive. Trump's voters are mostly the fairly comfortable GOP base; the squeezed middle in a rich country that' rode out of the economic crisis far faster than the UK. However often by working damned hard. And these folk are often mobilised by culture warfare, the petty struggles over identity that liberal America has generally been winning. Actually they often may not be well educated but these are certainly privileged people but even the sleekest of them just have not been feeling it to their satisfaction. And what's perhaps more surprising is Trump's high dislike numbers didn't hurt Senate and Congressional races much. That means Trump gets to pack the Supreme Court with rightwing judges that will shape American life long after he has retired to a life of leisurely groping.

What Septics earn looks a lot better if you work it out in Sterling than it used to in Dubya's day.
View attachment 95258
Let's see how the dollar goes under Trump.

so nothing to do with fracking and the subsequent energy boom i suppose

 

[brogdale]

I've asked this before, but as it's appearing on several threads now...

...if you're arguing the result can be explained by the fact it was racist/sexist/white men (whatever - racist, anti-immigrants in the case of Brexit) voting on those grounds, the what do you propose to do to win next time around?

But that sort of question does presuppose that everyone making such an 'analysis' of the vote intends to engage with/join the next electoral contest.

 

[chilango]

But that sort of question does presuppose that everyone making such an 'analysis' of the vote intends to engage with/join the next electoral contest.

Well I'm assuming that they'd want a different outcome next time at least...

 

[bimble]

I've asked this before, but as it's appearing on several threads now...

...if you're arguing the result can be explained by the fact it was racist/sexist/white men (whatever - racist, anti-immigrants in the case of Brexit) voting on those grounds, the what do you propose to do to win next time around?

Look at butcher's article above, which says that white racism contributed massively to Trump’s success and then goes on to suggest a new kind of anti-racist strategy is needed. I'd like to find out more about what this could be not just what it isn't. Haven't got the answers, obviously, but one thing that seems to be a factor is the more diverse the demographic of where you live the less likely you are to be drawn to xenophobic rhetoric, the more contact you have with actual real live immigrants / foreigners the less likely you were to vote ukip etc.

 

[inva]

I've asked this before, but as it's appearing on several threads now...

...if you're arguing the result can be explained by the fact it was racist/sexist/white men (whatever - racist, anti-immigrants in the case of Brexit) voting on those grounds, the what do you propose to do to win next time around?

banking on the magical power of demographics to dispel the ruling class & social structures that foster and exploit social divisions..

 

[CrabbedOne]

so nothing to do with fracking and the subsequent energy boom i suppose

More just a little Federal level economics 101 while the UK and most of Europe buggered about with insane recovery retarding austerity policies.

 

[flypanam]

Here's an article that takes issue with some of the identitarians and their support for Clinton. Worth a read.

A plague on the Whitehouse

 

[CrabbedOne]

Look at butcher's article above, which says that white racism contributed massively to Trump’s success and then goes on to suggest a new kind of anti-racist strategy is needed. I'd like to find out more about what this could be not just what it isn't. Haven't got the answers, obviously, but one thing that seems to be a factor is the more diverse the demographic of where you live the less likely you are to be drawn to xenophobic rhetoric, the more contact you have with actual real live immigrants / foreigners the less likely you were to vote ukip etc.

Clinton was still associated with the whole reheated Reaganism of the "I feel your pain" thing and Ronnie's NAFTA project. She tilted slightly to the left after Bernie but really it was going to be a 90s rehash and that direction failed a lot of people. Running away from a large white blue collar base that's often a good deal less liberal to court minorities that in the end didn't care for her as much as Obama or her charismatic husband was a tactical error. In a democracy you can't always lead the voter as quickly as you'd like and tolerant trends can go backwards. Consider wide Jewish inclusion in Austria in the 20s and what followed.

The other sad reality is for all the focus on Trump's race baiting America may actually have been more ready for a black President than a female one. Which may be connected with a lot of men feeling unmanned by serial divorce and shifts in the labour market that favour employing women who tend at least to be functionally literate. To repurpose what comes out of Trump's strange potty mouth they feel they've been grabbed by the pussy like a bitch.

Most white Americans are actually OK with the old gender/racial order crumbling; it's a signifiant minority that are not. What's new about Trump is unlike obviously far more racist Presidents like Woodrow Wilson or a sexual predators like the Kennedy clan produced he operates in an environment where white male supremacy has stopped being the default setting and he's transgressing norms of politeness.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Lots of vox pops on the news from people in America who seem to think the problem is 'white men' and they state that openly. The people saying this are almost exclusively white. What a grossly alienating way of doing politics, if you wanted someone to lose elections or other political contests and actions you would tell them to say things like that.

Looking at only the swing states — either those that were close or were projected to be in the polls — Clinton mostly met her benchmarks. On average, her results were only 0.5 points worse than what the polls had projected. In almost two-thirds of swing states, the polls had pegged her support to within a single point.

Trump, however, did much better. He beat his swing state polls by an average of 3.2 points. This was enough to flip Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin over to his camp and against expectations. And these states had more than enough electoral college votes to give Trump the win.

Trump beat his polls by the widest margins in the swing states of Minnesota, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina and Wisconsin. It is no coincidence that Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Minnesota had some of the largest white electorates of the swing states.

But in states where there were large Hispanic populations, like Nevada and New Mexico, Trump did worse than his polls had predicted. Perhaps thanks to higher Hispanic turnout, Clinton fared better in these states, along with Arizona.

Lower African-American turnout, on the other hand, may have hurt Clinton in states where she underperformed her polls, such as South Carolina, Ohio and North Carolina.

The polls suggested that Clinton would win Pennsylvania by about three points. Instead, she lost it by one. The polls appear to have missed Trump's support among whites who, according to exit polls, made up a little more of the electorate in Pennsylvania than in 2012. Some final polls put his advantage at between five and 11 points among white voters in the state. Exit polls suggest he won that vote by 16 points.

In Michigan, projected for Clinton by two points, Trump narrowly edged her out. Here again, the polls appear to have missed his support among whites by a significant margin. One late poll put his advantage among white voters in Michigan at 10 points. Exit polls indicate he won them by 21 points.

Wisconsin may have been the most surprising swing state of the night. Polls gave it to Clinton by about five points. Trump took it by one. Here again, two polls gave white voters to him by one or two points while exit polls show he won it by 13 instead.

What the polls missed seems clear. Trump's strong support among white Americans was underestimated, either because the polls were not reaching them or pollsters misjudged the share of the electorate whites would have. Miscalculations in the turnout projections of different demographic groups may have been a major factor.

Missing the mark: Pollsters failed to see Trump's true support among white voters

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Interesting point about the possibility of systematic errors in prediction of turnout. You also have to factor into that the various states that have introduced stricter voter registration procedures, which disproportionately affect black people.

But there's also a simpler explanation, one that we're used to here in the UK, where you substitute Trump for Tory. People were embarrassed to admit to voting for Trump, even in an anonymous poll, so they lied.