4 ms·

> Centrists claim that liberals’ obsession with political correctness and minority rights drove white voters to Donald Trump Not exactly. Centrists claim that

> Centrists claim that liberals’ obsession with political correctness and minority rights drove white voters to Donald Trump Not exactly. Centrists claim that Democrats' apparent abandonment of the working class and rural communities drove these voters to Trump. Rather than introspecting, Democrats compounded their error by imputing racism and sexism.

Forgeties79 4y ago
In my experience it was and is both. The “you made them do it” narrative was very, very popular right after the election in 2016, as if the people who pulled the lever somehow didn’t have their own agency or couldn’t possibly hold complex motives. It was kind of a weird half blame game, half rationalization thing.
- _ktx2 4y ago
  If it's criticism like mine, it's more to the tune of "You never showed up". I don't remember seeing a single campaign or rally; instead Beto was looked at to lead Texas and nothing else. The message was pretty clear locally, the Democratic party wasn't coming. There were already image problems in Texas. When George Bush took office, many liberal publications took to the tactic of repeatedly airing his stuttering in speeches. It led to this perception that people thought he was stupid, and many conservatives started pushing their audiences to AM radio - which was the first step in sewing distrust in "mainstream media". This is all from my recollection, a good bit of it as a child, and I've never seen anyone acknowledge how these events are linked. I'm sure economics, healthcare, education, etc are also all tied up in this mix of this too.
  - bandyaboot 4y ago
    The narrative about the Democratic party not coming is particularly amusing in regards to Texas. They tried to come there in 2020 and they were run out of town to the great enjoyment of the local police.
    - kodah 4y ago
      I don't think that negates not showing up in 2016 (or prior). If anything, if you have zero presence and investment over a long period of time you can expect things to get worse.
- rendall 4y ago
  The Democrats lost an opportunity by addressing only the strawmen. By focusing on deplorables and Russians, they allowed themselves freedom from addressing substantive problems of working class and rural neglect. Which gave Trump an opening he otherwise would not have had.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - corrral 4y ago
    > By focusing on deplorables and Russians, they allowed themselves freedom from addressing substantive problems of working class and rural neglect. Which gave Trump an opening he otherwise would not have had. Amusingly, Clinton's infamous "deplorables" comment was aimed exactly at reversing this. "Yes, something like 1/3 of them are irredeemably shit, but most of them are absolutely reachable and we should be trying to reach out to them" was the point of it—and, from background in these things, I'm guessing her 1/3 wasn't an ass-pull but was based on certain polling data and is a pretty accurate assessment of the fraction of Republican voters that really... well, did belong in "a basket of deplorables". Terrible, terrible messaging strategy, though. All-time hall-of-fame worst. That was candid, internal campaign talk coming out in a public speech.
UncleMeat 4y ago
I’ve heard people say variations of “Trump won because people say latinx” hundreds of times from centrists.
- rendall 4y ago
  I've heard all kinds of nonsense from all sorts of people of all political stripes. Unserious people give unserious arguments credence, taking the opportunity to hold them up as typical of those with whom they disagree. Meanwhile, actual substantive problems, issues and claims remain unaddressed. For instance, Trump won because of deep, abiding economic problems. Attributing Trump's victory to "latinx" or "racism" or other silly, unserious behavior enable Democrats to continue to neglect these problems.

Forgeties79 4y ago

In my experience it was and is both. The “you made them do it” narrative was very, very popular right after the election in 2016, as if the people who pulled the lever somehow didn’t have their own agency or couldn’t possibly hold complex motives. It was kind of a weird half blame game, half rationalization thing.

_ktx2 4y ago
If it's criticism like mine, it's more to the tune of "You never showed up". I don't remember seeing a single campaign or rally; instead Beto was looked at to lead Texas and nothing else. The message was pretty clear locally, the Democratic party wasn't coming. There were already image problems in Texas. When George Bush took office, many liberal publications took to the tactic of repeatedly airing his stuttering in speeches. It led to this perception that people thought he was stupid, and many conservatives started pushing their audiences to AM radio - which was the first step in sewing distrust in "mainstream media". This is all from my recollection, a good bit of it as a child, and I've never seen anyone acknowledge how these events are linked. I'm sure economics, healthcare, education, etc are also all tied up in this mix of this too.
- bandyaboot 4y ago
  The narrative about the Democratic party not coming is particularly amusing in regards to Texas. They tried to come there in 2020 and they were run out of town to the great enjoyment of the local police.
  - kodah 4y ago
    I don't think that negates not showing up in 2016 (or prior). If anything, if you have zero presence and investment over a long period of time you can expect things to get worse.
rendall 4y ago
The Democrats lost an opportunity by addressing only the strawmen. By focusing on deplorables and Russians, they allowed themselves freedom from addressing substantive problems of working class and rural neglect. Which gave Trump an opening he otherwise would not have had.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- corrral 4y ago
  > By focusing on deplorables and Russians, they allowed themselves freedom from addressing substantive problems of working class and rural neglect. Which gave Trump an opening he otherwise would not have had. Amusingly, Clinton's infamous "deplorables" comment was aimed exactly at reversing this. "Yes, something like 1/3 of them are irredeemably shit, but most of them are absolutely reachable and we should be trying to reach out to them" was the point of it—and, from background in these things, I'm guessing her 1/3 wasn't an ass-pull but was based on certain polling data and is a pretty accurate assessment of the fraction of Republican voters that really... well, did belong in "a basket of deplorables". Terrible, terrible messaging strategy, though. All-time hall-of-fame worst. That was candid, internal campaign talk coming out in a public speech.

UncleMeat 4y ago

I’ve heard people say variations of “Trump won because people say latinx” hundreds of times from centrists.

rendall 4y ago
I've heard all kinds of nonsense from all sorts of people of all political stripes. Unserious people give unserious arguments credence, taking the opportunity to hold them up as typical of those with whom they disagree. Meanwhile, actual substantive problems, issues and claims remain unaddressed. For instance, Trump won because of deep, abiding economic problems. Attributing Trump's victory to "latinx" or "racism" or other silly, unserious behavior enable Democrats to continue to neglect these problems.