5 ms·

Logan County, West Virginia, where this article is set, voted 80% in favor of Trump, giving him 10,000 additional votes. [1] The entire state of West Virginia w

Logan County, West Virginia, where this article is set, voted 80% in favor of Trump, giving him 10,000 additional votes. [1] The entire state of West Virginia went to Trump. If Democrats want to change the current political landscape in this country, they might start by addressing some of these peoples' problems while they're campaigning on everyone else's problems too. Trump (and conservatives) aren't going to do a thing for these people, but at least they mentioned them. [1]: http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/west-virginia/ http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/...

amigoingtodie 9y ago
West Virginia only has 5 electoral college votes.
- Spivak 9y ago
  Right, but they have a great votes/population ratio. Giving small states a voice is precisely why we have the current distribution of electoral votes.
  - amigoingtodie 9y ago
    '...great votes/population ratio' Can you elaborate on that?
549362-30499 9y ago
Clinton did campaign on a jobs and retraining program specifically for these people. But how can you compete with someone saying they'll hand-wave away your problems and return your old way of life?
- alexanderstears 9y ago
  How appealing is a retaining program when you're dirty, tired, old, and not able to get to a class room? She didn't campaign on a jobs program, or at least not one that would matter like a jobs guarantee.
  - rbanffy 9y ago
    Should they just lie instead? Sometimes reality is not appealing.
    - alexanderstears 9y ago
      Should they just lie instead? What's the objective? I think the retraining is a neoliberal dog whistle for 'these people deserve their current lives'. If the objective is to run a campaign that's consistent with (or an affirmation of) elite coastal values, then harping on retraining is exactly the right thing to do. If you want to want the most votes, you have to appeal to the most amount of people. Making coastal elites the outgroup is smart because there aren't that many of them and they probably support one of their own anyway.
      - thaumaturgy 9y ago
        > I think the retraining is a neoliberal dog whistle for 'these people deserve their current lives'. I have to agree with you here. You see this implied in comment threads like this one too, that they're making choices that are ultimately causing their own situation. Contrast this with similar articles involving impoverished people in urban environments, especially those with other skin colors, and the difference is stark. I think Democrats have largely written these people off, and they've lost a lot of political power because of it, and they're still running around and looking for fault everywhere else but in their own politics. From an impoverished rural perspective, "the government will bring you jobs" and "the government will provide retraining programs" are exactly the wrong messages and goes to show how out of touch Democrats are with these voters. From these peoples' perspective, the government is the source of many of their troubles. The government gives them a disability check that isn't enough to live on, and then threatens to take it away for any of a vast number of reasons; the government shut down the companies that gave them jobs; the government provides all kinds of programs for other people, but not for them (e.g. affirmative action). The moment a politician says, "the government can fix your problems, and I represent the government", they lose this audience.
      - rbanffy 9y ago
- bronson 9y ago
  They don't want retraining, they want their jobs. Remember “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business”? http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/sanders-looking-to-rack-up-west-virginia-win-over-clinton-222952 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/sanders-looking-to-rac...
- amigoingtodie 9y ago
  It is a tough sell to take away an $80k/year job and replace it with slightly above minimum wage.
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    Solar array installation and wind farm maintenance pay pretty well: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/30/business/energy-environment/coal-alternative-energy-jobs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/30/business/energy-environme...
    - amigoingtodie 9y ago
      The article had a quote that some starting coal mining salaries were up to $150k, but after a 2.5 year apprenticeship for solar install, workers can make $25/hr. Better than minimum wage, but isn't it hard for somebody with a family to train for two years without a salary?
- r00fus 9y ago
  This is a hard truth: Trump had the populist vote (mostly lies IMHO) and Clinton ceded it to him. What Democrats needed was to nominate a better populist. I doubt Sanders would have won WV, but I think he might have done better than Clinton in red-areas of states she should have won like Florida or Michigan.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Clinton did campaign on a jobs and retraining program specifically for these people. To the extent that's true, she did an incredibly poor job of communicating it, and it was certainly not a visible, central theme of her campaign. And, it probably didn't help politically (whether or not the association is warranted) that her husband also, in living memory of many voters, made similar promises tied to NAFTA, with little substantuve result in that area (and then cut pre-existing long-term safety net programs to rub salt in the wound.)
- digi_owl 9y ago
  As an outside to the whole affair, i felt the overarching theme of the Clinton campaign was "mutated" gender politics. But for most people outside the beltway and campuses, the economy and their daily expenses were a more pressing issue. Thus that the Democrats decides to hitch their horse with Clinton, even though her campaign focus seemed off target or ill focused, and she already had a negative reputation from the Obama years, and being the wife of a former President, effectively sunk the campaign from the word go. Even afterwards it seems like the main way Democrats can find to attack Trump is on trying to tar him as a misogynist. Of all the things that the guy can be attacked for, that is what they decided to focus on???
csense 9y ago
> Trump (and conservatives) aren't going to do a thing for these people, but at least they mentioned them. One of Trump's campaign promises was to cut back environmental and business regulations and get the coal industry rolling again. He actually did pull out of the Paris climate accord. Is this the right approach? Will Trump's actions help these communities? I'm not sure. But it's simply not true that he's doing nothing about the issue.
- alexanderstears 9y ago
  I think it is - imagine how much better off these people would be if they spent less on fuel - $50 in gas on a $750 monthly budget is proportionally near what I spend on RENT with my (pre-tax) salary. I'm not sure coal can compete with fracking so the coal jobs are moot.
  - hpcjoe 9y ago
    Coal was viable as a fuel until a few years ago. Then the environmental regulations hit full force, and forced many of these companies under. I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but worth repeating. Decisions have consequences. Deciding that you will enforce a particular tax/regulation policy based upon perceived (real or otherwise) environmental harm means that the people who depend upon those industries for their livelihood, are going to suffer. Coal is still cheaper (pre-regulations to kill the industry). Fracking is a response to a) offshore drilling restriction regs and b) OPEC raising its cost per barrel to the point where it becomes economically viable. Coal is even better, albeit a dirtier fuel, from a cost perspective. But it has been regulated into economic impracticality, by the previous administration. OPEC tried to kill fracking, after their proxies in the US failed to get it turned off, by driving the price per barrel down to levels where it was economically infeasible to use fracking. However, they didn't count on technological development and newer field discoveries. Which actually enabled fracking to reduce the crossover to profitability point below where OPEC was aiming. While this was happening, we all enjoyed the benefit of competition and lower prices for fuel. OPEC has since cried UNCLE and has given up this direction. The point for coal being, that, had the regulations not been enacted, much of what is discussed in this story would not be the case. But they were enacted, because some people felt that their connection to the environment was far more important than other peoples livelihood. Yes, it really is that simple. While I'd love to see us transition to cleaner tech over time, I recognize that there is economic momentum in existing energy tech. Losing this economic momentum means that we consign a non-negligible fraction of our neighbors to effectively an economic dustbin. The rust belt was a prototype for this from an economic view ... it became less expensive to manufacture out of country, so we did. Manufacturing naturally flows to the lowest cost areas, to maximize profits and margins. Manufacturing employs large swaths of people who learn niche jobs, and aren't mobile to find new jobs, when old ones go away. Generally speaking, you can't fight economics. You can distort it with regulations and taxes. But it will eventually settle on an equilibrium. And karma is, as it were ... painful ...

amigoingtodie 9y ago

West Virginia only has 5 electoral college votes.

Spivak 9y ago
Right, but they have a great votes/population ratio. Giving small states a voice is precisely why we have the current distribution of electoral votes.
- amigoingtodie 9y ago
  '...great votes/population ratio' Can you elaborate on that?

549362-30499 9y ago

Clinton did campaign on a jobs and retraining program specifically for these people. But how can you compete with someone saying they'll hand-wave away your problems and return your old way of life?

alexanderstears 9y ago
How appealing is a retaining program when you're dirty, tired, old, and not able to get to a class room? She didn't campaign on a jobs program, or at least not one that would matter like a jobs guarantee.
- rbanffy 9y ago
  Should they just lie instead? Sometimes reality is not appealing.
  - alexanderstears 9y ago
    Should they just lie instead? What's the objective? I think the retraining is a neoliberal dog whistle for 'these people deserve their current lives'. If the objective is to run a campaign that's consistent with (or an affirmation of) elite coastal values, then harping on retraining is exactly the right thing to do. If you want to want the most votes, you have to appeal to the most amount of people. Making coastal elites the outgroup is smart because there aren't that many of them and they probably support one of their own anyway.
    - thaumaturgy 9y ago
      > I think the retraining is a neoliberal dog whistle for 'these people deserve their current lives'. I have to agree with you here. You see this implied in comment threads like this one too, that they're making choices that are ultimately causing their own situation. Contrast this with similar articles involving impoverished people in urban environments, especially those with other skin colors, and the difference is stark. I think Democrats have largely written these people off, and they've lost a lot of political power because of it, and they're still running around and looking for fault everywhere else but in their own politics. From an impoverished rural perspective, "the government will bring you jobs" and "the government will provide retraining programs" are exactly the wrong messages and goes to show how out of touch Democrats are with these voters. From these peoples' perspective, the government is the source of many of their troubles. The government gives them a disability check that isn't enough to live on, and then threatens to take it away for any of a vast number of reasons; the government shut down the companies that gave them jobs; the government provides all kinds of programs for other people, but not for them (e.g. affirmative action). The moment a politician says, "the government can fix your problems, and I represent the government", they lose this audience.
    - rbanffy 9y ago
bronson 9y ago
They don't want retraining, they want their jobs. Remember “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business”? http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/sanders-looking-to-rack-up-west-virginia-win-over-clinton-222952 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/sanders-looking-to-rac...
amigoingtodie 9y ago
It is a tough sell to take away an $80k/year job and replace it with slightly above minimum wage.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  Solar array installation and wind farm maintenance pay pretty well: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/30/business/energy-environment/coal-alternative-energy-jobs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/30/business/energy-environme...
  - amigoingtodie 9y ago
    The article had a quote that some starting coal mining salaries were up to $150k, but after a 2.5 year apprenticeship for solar install, workers can make $25/hr. Better than minimum wage, but isn't it hard for somebody with a family to train for two years without a salary?
r00fus 9y ago
This is a hard truth: Trump had the populist vote (mostly lies IMHO) and Clinton ceded it to him. What Democrats needed was to nominate a better populist. I doubt Sanders would have won WV, but I think he might have done better than Clinton in red-areas of states she should have won like Florida or Michigan.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Clinton did campaign on a jobs and retraining program specifically for these people. To the extent that's true, she did an incredibly poor job of communicating it, and it was certainly not a visible, central theme of her campaign. And, it probably didn't help politically (whether or not the association is warranted) that her husband also, in living memory of many voters, made similar promises tied to NAFTA, with little substantuve result in that area (and then cut pre-existing long-term safety net programs to rub salt in the wound.)
digi_owl 9y ago
As an outside to the whole affair, i felt the overarching theme of the Clinton campaign was "mutated" gender politics. But for most people outside the beltway and campuses, the economy and their daily expenses were a more pressing issue. Thus that the Democrats decides to hitch their horse with Clinton, even though her campaign focus seemed off target or ill focused, and she already had a negative reputation from the Obama years, and being the wife of a former President, effectively sunk the campaign from the word go. Even afterwards it seems like the main way Democrats can find to attack Trump is on trying to tar him as a misogynist. Of all the things that the guy can be attacked for, that is what they decided to focus on???

csense 9y ago

> Trump (and conservatives) aren't going to do a thing for these people, but at least they mentioned them. One of Trump's campaign promises was to cut back environmental and business regulations and get the coal industry rolling again. He actually did pull out of the Paris climate accord. Is this the right approach? Will Trump's actions help these communities? I'm not sure. But it's simply not true that he's doing nothing about the issue.

alexanderstears 9y ago
I think it is - imagine how much better off these people would be if they spent less on fuel - $50 in gas on a $750 monthly budget is proportionally near what I spend on RENT with my (pre-tax) salary. I'm not sure coal can compete with fracking so the coal jobs are moot.
- hpcjoe 9y ago
  Coal was viable as a fuel until a few years ago. Then the environmental regulations hit full force, and forced many of these companies under. I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but worth repeating. Decisions have consequences. Deciding that you will enforce a particular tax/regulation policy based upon perceived (real or otherwise) environmental harm means that the people who depend upon those industries for their livelihood, are going to suffer. Coal is still cheaper (pre-regulations to kill the industry). Fracking is a response to a) offshore drilling restriction regs and b) OPEC raising its cost per barrel to the point where it becomes economically viable. Coal is even better, albeit a dirtier fuel, from a cost perspective. But it has been regulated into economic impracticality, by the previous administration. OPEC tried to kill fracking, after their proxies in the US failed to get it turned off, by driving the price per barrel down to levels where it was economically infeasible to use fracking. However, they didn't count on technological development and newer field discoveries. Which actually enabled fracking to reduce the crossover to profitability point below where OPEC was aiming. While this was happening, we all enjoyed the benefit of competition and lower prices for fuel. OPEC has since cried UNCLE and has given up this direction. The point for coal being, that, had the regulations not been enacted, much of what is discussed in this story would not be the case. But they were enacted, because some people felt that their connection to the environment was far more important than other peoples livelihood. Yes, it really is that simple. While I'd love to see us transition to cleaner tech over time, I recognize that there is economic momentum in existing energy tech. Losing this economic momentum means that we consign a non-negligible fraction of our neighbors to effectively an economic dustbin. The rust belt was a prototype for this from an economic view ... it became less expensive to manufacture out of country, so we did. Manufacturing naturally flows to the lowest cost areas, to maximize profits and margins. Manufacturing employs large swaths of people who learn niche jobs, and aren't mobile to find new jobs, when old ones go away. Generally speaking, you can't fight economics. You can distort it with regulations and taxes. But it will eventually settle on an equilibrium. And karma is, as it were ... painful ...