7 ms·

The crazy thing about it, is most people are unwilling to discuss why Trump was elected in 2016, the concept of middle American whites on a rapid decline is alm

• EasyTiger_ 7y ago
  They deal with it by labeling them as "nazis" it seems to me.
• madengr 7y ago
  Trump was elected because of Clinton. If the Democrats could field a candidate that wasn’t hell bent on gun banning, they’d probably win. As it stands, Trump will win again. The “hell yes, were are coming for your guns” probably cost them the election.
  • pjc50 7y ago
    If the Republicans could come up with an effective plan for ending the regular mass shootings, perhaps some sort of compromise? Then there would be much less momentum for gun control or gun bans.
    • corporateslave5 7y ago
      What if mass shootings are tied to the destruction of the white working class? You have an easy fix for that?
      • pjc50 7y ago
        Are they? Some, like the Vegas shooter with his arsenal, appear to have been well off.
      • krapp 7y ago
        We already have a "fix" for domestic terrorists - arrest them or shoot them.
        • corporateslave5 7y ago
          That’s what third world countries do, govern by violence first, instead of trying to solve underlying problems
          • krapp 7y ago
            Mass shooters do not have a legitimate place in any first world system of governance. Every country treats domestic terrorists the same way, regardless of whatever other solutions for the underlying problems might be attempted.
            • corporateslave5 7y ago
              Ofcourse they should be felt with swiftly, but when it becomes a pattern you have to look at underlying causes
            • pnako 7y ago
              I don't see anyone arguing for letting mass shooters roam free. The issue is: how to prevent those shootings in the first place. If you kill or jail them for life it doesn't exactly prevent the shooting they did, does it?
            • a_tractor 7y ago
              >Mass shooters do not have a legitimate place in any first world system of governance. Right, which is why those who commit such crimes are permanently and severely punished to the full extent of the law for the rest of their lives. Its insane that I have to even state what should be blindingly obvious, but it is impossible to identify a "mass shooter" until the very moment they begin mass shooting, and you cannot lock up or restrict the rights of innocent people simply based on speculation or "guilt by association." If you do not understand the underlying issues producing "domestic terrorists" then you cannot possibly hope to identify them.
  • Ididntdothis 7y ago
    I would agree. The Democrats could easily have won in 2016 if they had actually tried to win. Same may happen in 2020. Instead of coming up with a vision for the country they are wasting their time and energy in impeachment. Just get f...ing elected! Actually have a plan!
    • pvaldes 7y ago
      Democrats won in fact. Having 2,8 million more votes than the second candidate would qualify as winning in most definitions of democracy. The problem is that the system does not work like this.
      • Ididntdothis 7y ago
        They didn’t win. Maybe they should have read the rules...
      • refurb 7y ago
        You might want to go tell Justin Trudeau that. Oh yeah, it’s not an issue if the candidate we like won.
  • AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    It wasn't just gun banning. Hillary was a terrible candidate. She didn't stand for much except her being elected. She wasn't likeable. She called half the country "deplorables" - the exact voters that we're talking about. She exuded this air of entitlement. And she had some scandals. (Yeah, I know, Trump wasn't exactly free from scandals either. But he didn't have the rest of the baggage.)
• ianai 7y ago
  You mean how a hostile foreign power filled the American media with propaganda to elect Trump? Or how about the various methods used to tweak the votes in critical districts. The entire poll was rigged, he still lost by 3 million votes, but won the electoral college. I could go on. But I do agree that inequality and lack of work need to be directly addressed by the D in the race.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
• AgentOrange1234 7y ago
  What universe is this from? Immediately after his election there was a huge surge of articles centering around “wtf just happened, why did people vote for him.” Going into 2020, appealing to those voters is going to be a huge priority for both parties, and democratic candidates are already talking about how to get back Obama-Trump voters... the whole country is acutely, painfully aware of the despair of the Real Americans and their struggles.
  • corporateslave5 7y ago
    Really? Because what I saw was two years of Russia conspiracy theories which have since vanished from the media
    • rpedela 7y ago
      It wasn't a conspiracy theory. The Russians really did influence our election. The question of whether Trump was involved in the conspiracy too was answered by Mueller, it was no, and now there is nothing to report. Ironically Trump is now in trouble with Ukraine for the very thing he was accused of doing with Russia, and he admitted it so no conspiracy theories.
      • a_tractor 7y ago
        >It wasn't a conspiracy theory "Trump colluding with the Russians" absolutely was a conspiracy theory, why are you trying to deflect? >The Russians really did influence our election. To what extent was the outcome actually influenced by their efforts, again? Has there ever been proof that the Russian government hacked the DNC server beyond the evidence Crowdstrike, a Ukraine-affiliated 3rd-party forensics outfit hired by the DNC, was paid to provide? Did anybody besides Crowdstrike, like the FBI or the Special Counsel, actually investigate the DNC server itself, or verify the information provided by Crowdstrike in any way? Hint: the answer is no. To what extent does the entire narrative and resulting special council investigations depend upon information which was literally produced and paid for by Trump's political opponents? >Ironically Trump is now in trouble with Ukraine for the very thing he was accused of doing with Russia Trump's DOJ looking into the origin of the false Trump-Russia collusion narrative and finding Democrat-Ukraine collusion means its actually the Democrats who are "in trouble with Ukraine for the very thing [Trump] was accused of doing with Russia" by Democrats for the last 3 years. Or do you mean how Democrats are accusing Trump of the very thing Biden appears to have done to Ukraine while acting as VP? Because the appearance of actual quid pro quo, conflict of interest, and abuse of power by the former VP Biden, through his very public threats to withhold aid from Ukraine unless they fired their head prosecutor, who just so happened at that time to be leading a corruption probe into a company employing the VP's son, which was put to an immediate end by the Biden installed replacement doesn't suddenly become off-limits simply because Biden chose to run for President, just the opposite. Somebody who appears to have abused the power of a previously-held, less-powerful, elected position should not be trusted with more power, and that is where Biden stands right now and Democrat efforts to prevent a full investigation is hypocritical and deeply suspicious, not to mention desperate. >and he admitted it so Please. That is a gross distortion of the truth and you know it.
• krapp 7y ago
  Many ethnic groups in middle America are in decline. The narrative of the "angry, disenfranchised, rural white male" being the reason for Trump's popularity has been adopted by the right and discussed at length in the media in relation to the rise in white nationalist interest in Trump's campaign, and the attempts of such groups to reframe the populist zeitgeist of that election cycle around white identity and the preservation of white privilege in the face of shifting culture, politics and demographics. Most Americans don't view economic and social issues through the lens of race war, however. Certainly, non-white Americans, who have also been affected by globalism, automation, unemployment and the collapse of traditionally stable industries like mining and manufacturing, would not be amenable to viewing themselves as either a symptom of, or merely collateral damage in, the narrative of the decline of white people.
  • _iyig 7y ago
    >Certainly, non-white Americans [...] would not be amenable to viewing themselves as either a symptom of, or merely collateral damage in, the narrative of the decline of white people. I'm not framing it that way. I think you're the only one here who's doing that. In my view, if we're going to break big issues down by race, it's smart to address and include all the races - especially the biggest one. While it's nice to imagine that non-white Americans would care about the problems of their fellow citizens, the decline of white America is at least the concern of voting Americans who happen to be white, which is most of them. This fact may be of interest to candidates seeking an electoral majority.
    • krapp 7y ago
      >In my view, if we're going to break big issues down by race, it's smart to address and include all the races - especially the biggest one. This isn't a racial issue - the decline of Middle America is not the decline of white America. There is no reason to focus on race per se, much less one race in exclusion to others. >the decline of white America is at least the concern of voting Americans who happen to be white, which is most of them. I don't think even most American white people view their economic status and fear of the future through the lens of their own racial identity.
• nkrisc 7y ago
  What exactly is the problem here? That middle American whites are falling out of the middle class? Or that the middle class is less white? Those are just two interpretations I could think of, but I am genuinely curious about what problem specifically you say Democrats are ignoring?
  • corporateslave5 7y ago
    The current white working class in the Midwest was at one time, not too long ago, the economic backbone of this country. Economic policies propelling forward globalization directly destroyed the economic livelihoods of those people. And now we’re being told it’s racist to complain about, racist to argue against policies that are destroying the Midwest.
    • ianai 7y ago
      Actually the destruction was headed for us when billions of people overseas were going to rapidly develop to our level of technology. There’s only a few hundred million of us and over a billion more of them. The US positioned itself to be in the best possible posture as the market leader through setting the terms early to benefit themselves just enough, but also lenient enough to keep our real pressures for disruption. There’s a good Frontline episode with Kissinger about granting China MFN status. He clearly saw the writing on the wall.
  • rpedela 7y ago
    If you drive through small to medium sized towns in Ohio, Indiana, etc you will often find a closed factory, mill, or some other manufacturing building that used to employ most of the town. But the jobs were shipped overseas or eliminated by automation, and the town is very poor and run down now. Previously the jobs paid a good wage and most of the town were middle class or upper middle class. Now they are largely lower class and are mad as hell about it. Most Democrats blame racism, lack of education, etc on why Trump won. No Trump won because the people in those towns want to be middle class again and he campaigned on helping them. Clinton campaigned on helping the generic poor just like most of the current candidates except Yang. Trump clearly hasn't helped them but Democrats need a candidate who speaks directly to them too.