Perhaps the other critique I would levy at that guy's tweet series is this: he's asking white people to get white Trump voters to think about other people in the voting booth.

That's really, really, really hard! Tons of people, I'd guess most of them, go into the voting booth and cast votes that are in their self interest. That may not be their specific intention, i.e. they may vote for something that they both think is altruistically right and happens to align with their self interest, but it's still what winds up happening for most people. I think most people who voted for Trump cast that vote thinking they will benefit when he makes America great again.

How on earth do we tell those people "hey, could you do us a favor and think less about yourselves - sorry, yes, we know, your anger in the first place is because you think the elites in society passed you over for others - and think more about others and the problems they face the next time you vote?"

Like, the more I reason this out the more impossible it feels. Having serious conversations with Trump voters about race is never, ever going to result in them being like "oh yeah wow I made some mistakes with my logic there".

Bernie managed to talk to some of these people and the liberals called him a racist and a sexist for it.

Falcon, maybe if the field of democrats included Biden or Warren, but there was an absolutely generic democrat in the race for like 2 minutes.

Maybe Obama covered the weakness of Democratic party. It did well only when he was on the top of the ticket and pretty darn poorly when he is not. I would have wagered a ton of money that their is no way the Democrats wouldn't retain the WH with Obama's approval rating in thru mid 50s which seems to support this argument.

I want to be clear about what I'm saying. I'm not in any way downplaying the role of racial anxiety to Trump support. I do think, though, that Trump's big political innovation was using open racism to outflank his primary opponents and to paper over his total lack of credentials. It's better to be Mitt Romney than Trump in the general.

The question that really needs answering is how HRC underperformed Obama by 7 million votes though. Wednesday morning quarterbacking aside, she ran a solid campaign with a completely justified "steady hand at the tiller" theme and she had the advantage of everything actually going pretty well, unemployment falling, GDP growing, etc. And you can't plausibly point to racism to explain why a black man got votes that she couldn't. My suggestion is that the story has to do with no one being willing to believe that things are going fine any more. They just know in their bones that everything's going to hell, so the only person they will vote for is the firebrand populist or the man on horseback or the dazzling orator. Anyone but a consensus-building technocratic caretaker.

Back to touting the econ bachelors.

I think this answers the question. They didn't make nearly a big enough deal out of the progress we've made over the last 8 years, both economic and social.

Like how many times did you hear HRC tout the unemployment rate, or adding jobs for 78 months straight, or coming closer to a balanced budget?

They ran on a campaign of "I'm not Trump". When people both want Trump and don't want you, that doesn't work.

The election of Trump does not have to be mostly about economic populist outrage to have been caused by wider economic social conditions though.

As I said before average Trump voter is going to have little actual objective awareness of the actual social and economic conditions that create them.

They will have a sense that things are not fair, and then Trump/Fox or whoever provides the narratives to explain that sense.

Exploited classes being made to vote against their own self interests by having their exploitation mis represented is centre stage in political history. Its a common occurance.

The elites are in a spot similar to that just after WW2, where it was the left who provided the compromise of social welfare (at least in Europe) that would allow the pie machine to go on making bigger and bigger pies, in complete stability, safe. Pie masters were happy, pie makers were happy. The pie machine could keep on trucking right up to the shocks of the 70s, where the story gets a bit murky.

I think we are broadly in a similar spot now, to remove the fertiliser from the social determinants that make Trump/Brexit possible, there needs to be a bit of pie loving spread around. A good old dose of very palatable feel good factor, you never had it so good. Would not take much loss of pie by the Elites. Pie makes people forget their silly angsts and hatreds. Pie, hmmmmm, Pie.

Time for a New Deal.

Or we could just skip straight to WW3.

You still have yet to refute any of my economic beliefs.

Wait a minute...... I thought the consensus was that poor, uneducated whites didn't vote their interest. Now you're telling me that they did?

Another Twitter thread (coworker posted it), posting this as a link instead of embedding because it's easier to read in Twitter reply view: https://twitter.com/absurdistwords/s...01496698671104

Kinda got a TNC "we know what we are, that we walk like we are not long for this world" vibe, but fights back against it.

They think they did.

They thought they voted for their own economic interests.

What they actually voted for was a billionaire with the power of an entrenched political party that want to enact tax reforms that decrease taxes on rich people while doing nothing to help poor or working class people.

Jobs are lost to automation and globalization, not immigrants. Automation and globalization aren't going anywhere anytime soon, and Donald Trump will do nothing to stop them.

I was listening to Santorum on PA. He said Obamacare hurt the Ds given the 50 percent premium increases and the party was only offering more government benefits when the people wanted better jobs.

Then the American people will just throw another Molotov cocktail at Washington. Donald Trump was the living, breathing Molotov cocktail thrown at the media and the "establishment".

Once you see that. It all makes sense.

Look how close Bernie came to overthrowing Hillary in the primary.

Trump just won his primary. That's it.

You do release that the Congresscriters love their jobs more than anything right? If the GOP has start giving out populist style bennies they will.

That might be true @ goofy and zimmer. But the rich are getting richer while the rest get poorer. Will that change under President Trump? Maybe, but probably not. But we know damn well it would not have under Clinton. Sanders? Possibly.

Trump: lol no
Clinton: also lol no for structural factors, but things like free college that she borrowed from Sanders would certainly have helped level out inequality for future generations
Sanders: possibly

A. Immigrants come here to fill jobs that nobody else will do. They work for less than minimum wage because that's still a better life than what they had in their home country. The Ford and Toyota factories in Kentucky and Tennessee and Michigan aren't staffed with illegal immigrants.

B. Globalization is here to stay. The forces of the US Government or the UK Government are not enough to reverse the will of the global business community. Technology and innovation have brought the world closer together and the world will continue to do business with each other more than ever, regardless of what individual governments want.

What do deficits matter at this point? We are already past the point of no return. When interest rates return to any sort of normal we are beyond screwed. The only way out now is through printing and inflation.

Sanders: lol no, for the same reason Feckless Trump wasn't even president elect for 12 hours before one of his signature campaign pledges was shot down by McConnell.

This. No way globalism ever ends. More jobs are in danger of automation and technology than are through some sweat shop in China or some dude swimming the Rio Grande.

Nice. Of course globalization and automation reduces jobs, but it is a flat out lie that there are no "economic immigrants". How much of each is to blame is debatable, but to simply dismiss one is dishonest.

Is it possible this is why he didn't listen to you?

I agree partially with this. But more than just tout the progress in the last 8 years, she should have addressed the people who felt left out of the progress and at least allay some of the fears that they were feeling.

I gave him a chance to speak. But I'm done being polite with people who buy into propaganda instead of y'know checking the BLS site.

a) Would these jobs "that immigrants do that nobody else will" disappear if not for them? Or would people/companies/corporations pay more to have these jobs done? Could it possibly help wage inflation?

B) Quite possible true

OK. But this is sort of like my response to well named about the right-wing media not really being separable from the core white nationalist project. The "baggage" that Clinton was perceived to have was not separable from the Deplorable Mindset. Her "baggage" was presented to and internalized through that filter.

Like, put diffrently yet still. We want to say well, Trump voters, they liked Trump for terrible reasons, all of them suggestive of super retrograde worldviews. Oh, but they hated Clinton for all these justifiable good reasons, her 'baggage' and her 'scandalous nature.'

What I'm saying: you probe just a little bit as to what the **** people even mean when they reference it and you just get the deplorable (((Soros))) Huma Benghazi traitor email globalist agenda Breitbart comment stuff.

"Her baggage" as some nebulous concept was just what deplorable swamp fever types horse traded in. Even the way you describe it is a complete euphemism meant to obscure natural human descriptions of things.