Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That does not explain how many women called her fat, old, a hag, ugly, wrinkled, cankles, etc. Trump is fatter and older, but these women - with no self awareness I'm sorry to say - would go on TV and call Hillary the most physically unattractive being wearing a "pantsuit". Women are absolutely obsessed with vanity and do not elect based on intelligence or skill. To elect a president based on how flat their hair is or what shade of blue their pantsuit is - women are not ready for prime time yet when it comes to the presidency. Someone said "Hillary, get some roof lift!" That is insane. These were women by the way, not men.
Most of us paid no attention to the way she looked. Many of us didn't care for her that much but we held our noses and voted for her--to stop Trump!!!! The person we ridiculed for looks was Trump--the Big Orange Clown, Clown Car. He's fat, has a double chin, big fat mouth. A liar. No political know how or experience.
We are not obsessed with vanity. You are so wrong about that. Hillary was well educated at Wellesley College, was always interested in politics, and had come up with a decent health plan when Bill was President. Maybe she really wouldn't have been that bad. It would certainly have been an improvement over that thing we are stuck with now.
Don't say never to Republicans running a woman. I can think of two, Nikki and Ivanka, that could be groomed for a shot in the near future - especially if Trumpism works for America. Ivanka just turned legal age for the Presidency, if things go well; you could see her for many, many years. Try a poll right now between Warren and Ivanka and see who wins! You need to bring out new faces and faces that Americans can trust.
I find it absolutely laughable how many Trump supporters are about Ivanka for no other reason than she is Trump's daughter and attractive. This proves my point entirely. Do they have any idea what she is about? What has she accomplished other than being born and selling outsourced shoes? And what happened to the whole anti-dynasty thing? For absolutely positively no other reason than she is his daughter, they like Ivanka. And they complained endlessly about Hillary running on being Bill's wife. I saw comments that they would like the Trump family to run the country for the next twenty years by electing all his children. Why did we have the Revolutionary War if flyover country wants a monarchy?
Democrats will NEVER stop engaging in identity politics (do you honestly think they will?), but they cannot continue to alienate white working class voters. They need to strategically appeal to these people, and they likely will through identity politics. If not, the Democratic Party is shooting itself in the foot.
By the way, I was an ardent #NeverTrumper.
Thank God for that. As far as that goes - each party clearly plays to their base. In the Republican case - that base is the white working class. They know it; and we know it.
Is that identity politics?
Quote:
Originally Posted by in_newengland
Most of us paid no attention to the way she looked. Many of us didn't care for her that much but we held our noses and voted for her--to stop Trump!!!! The person we ridiculed for looks was Trump--the Big Orange Clown, Clown Car. He's fat, has a double chin, big fat mouth. A liar. No political know how or experience.
We are not obsessed with vanity. You are so wrong about that. Hillary was well educated at Wellesley College, was always interested in politics, and had come up with a decent health plan when Bill was President. Maybe she really wouldn't have been that bad. It would certainly have been an improvement over that thing we are stuck with now.
Thank you. Most thinking women didn't give one damn about what she looked like. It's her brain and qualification that counts and soon-to-be seventy year old women usually don't try and look like the latest beauty queen.
[quote=Ringo1;46760480]Thank God for that. As far as that goes - each party clearly plays to their base. In the Republican case - that base is the white working class. They know it; and we know it.
Is that identity politics?
[quote]
No they aren't. If they are how have the Democrats done so well in the Rust Belt all these years? But if the white working class continues to defect to the Republicans, the Democrats are in biiiiiiig trouble. And I, for one, sorely hope that this happens.
Thank God for that. As far as that goes - each party clearly plays to their base. In the Republican case - that base is the white working class. They know it; and we know it.
Is that identity politics?
Thank you. Most thinking women didn't give one damn about what she looked like. It's her brain and qualification that counts and soon-to-be seventy year old women usually don't try and look like the latest beauty queen.
I really would like to think women would not care what the woman looked like. I was quite shocked how many women attacked Hillary for her looks and to ignore it is to deny reality. If it had been just a few, I would ignore it but it was constant and continues to this day. Not wanting Hillary based on her positions? I have no problem with that and I'm a liberal Democrat. But the constant drumbeat of calling her old, wrinkled, cankles, a hog in a pantsuit, etc.? Women should have shut that down but they didn't because most often they were the ones saying it.
I completely agree with you, these calls to appeal to blue collar voters in the Rust Belt is identity politics too. It's just those voters want it to be their identity that's catered to. There seems to be a lot of resentment to the success the west has seen. What will be interesting is Trump's tax cuts which will probably benefit blue states the most since they will get to keep the money in their states thus making them even stronger. Red states would get to keep their money too but they don't have a lot of money to keep with the top five states on disability residing in the South and West Virginia (coal country) as number one.
I find it absolutely laughable how many Trump supporters are about Ivanka for no other reason than she is Trump's daughter and attractive. This proves my point entirely. Do they have any idea what she is about? What has she accomplished other than being born and selling outsourced shoes? And what happened to the whole anti-dynasty thing? For absolutely positively no other reason than she is his daughter, they like Ivanka. And they complained endlessly about Hillary running on being Bill's wife. I saw comments that they would like the Trump family to run the country for the next twenty years by electing all his children. Why did we have the Revolutionary War if flyover country wants a monarchy?
To me, as a casual observer, I do not think the Party has changed or acknowledged defeat. It looks like 14 copies of Hillary - they even have Tim Kaine in there for spot #14. It appears that they gave up until 2024.
As far as I know we are now about to throw out the monarch. When it comes to Ivanka; she is no dummy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanka_Trump. Donald won this election campaigning against the establishment on both sides of the isle. Ivanka would be looked on as anti-establishment even with 4 years of grooming. You cannot say the same for the list of 15. Try a poll; Ivanka against Warren and see who wins.
Didn't Trump win among white people with a bachelor's degree? And yes, your whole analysis is based on the proposition that working-class people and people who have bachelor's degrees are two different groups of people, which is false.
Blue collar/working class titles are generally used in exit poll data to refer to voters who have less than a bachelors degree. It only matters in the sense that there are significant differences in the averages of how the two groups vote, and nationally there almost always is a double digit difference in those two groups.
As for Trump and non-college voters, he carried non-college whites by a staggering 37 points. He won white college grads by 3.
Here's the data on the percentage of the vote cast by non-college white voters from 1980 through 2016. It also includes the percentage that non-college whites made of the total national Republican popular vote from 1980 through 2008. I don't have the data on the R vote percentages for 2012 and 2016.
The non-college white portion of the electorate has been shrinking for the last 36 years. In 1980 they represented 65% of total votes cast and 70% of Reagan's vote, so you could say that Reagan was 5% overly dependent on that group, since their share of his vote was 5% more than their share of total votes cast.
For the last year we have data, 2008, the total white non-college voting was down to 39%, and yet they represented half of the votes cast for John McCain, for an over dependence of 11%. Given the enormous performance that Trump received from non-college whites (+37%) and his relatively weak performance among college whites (+3), as compared to Romney (+14), Trump's win was probably more dependent on that non-college white vote (in terms of vote share produced vs total share) of any R candidate in history.
Like I said in an earlier post, POTUS elections are won and lost on a state by state basis. There will continue to be battles in individual states that will determine the winner. But there are three huge groups of voters, college grad whites , college white non-college and total minority. Prior to the election, it was estimated that 2016 would find an electorate that was 37% white college grad, 33% white non college and 30% minority. It was expected that by 2020, white non-college would slip behind both white college grads and total minority in terms of total votes cast. Trump caused an uptick in white non-college voting and also there was a lower minority turnout that resulted in a 37/34/29 ratio in 2016.
No one can say what will happen in future elections, but you can only go to a diminishing well for so long. That's why I said that the emphasis for both parties has to be white college voters, because that and minorities is where all of the growth is.
This supposed differentiation between college educated folks and blue collar folks speaks to one aspect of why the left is so out of touch with a wide swath of the country. "Blue collar" is both a descriptive of educational/career level and a descriptive of culture and roots. Too many on the left see it only as educational/career level.
I have an MBA and have had a high level and lucrative career, and I see myself as a culturally blue collar person. My Dad worked in a factory as did most of the men I knew growing up. Though I have lived a very different life than them, I held onto the values I grew up with. And I know plenty of similarly successful "blue collar" people.
For the past 8 years, Obama, Hillary, and the Democratic Party at best ignored us blue collar types, and at worst denigrated us. And there are a whole lot more "blue collar" folks out there than they realize. Snobbery and elitism are attributes that just do not play well with us.
Like I said in an earlier post, POTUS elections are won and lost on a state by state basis. There will continue to be battles in individual states that will determine the winner. But there are three huge groups of voters, college grad whites , college white non-college and total minority. Prior to the election, it was estimated that 2016 would find an electorate that was 37% white college grad, 33% white non college and 30% minority. It was expected that by 2020, white non-college would slip behind both white college grads and total minority in terms of total votes cast. Trump caused an uptick in white non-college voting and also there was a lower minority turnout that resulted in a 37/34/29 ratio in 2016.
No one can say what will happen in future elections, but you can only go to a diminishing well for so long. That's why I said that the emphasis for both parties has to be white college voters, because that and minorities is where all of the growth is.
Or perhaps you should not mention 2008 and 2012 in the minority voter participation trendline as it was an anomaly driven by a personable, 1st ever mixed race POTUS. To be frank, the 2nd, were he just like BO in every way, would likely underperform BO in the same demographic groups he spiked.
Dems love identity politics, but it is a one trick pony IMO. The 2nd one is not as "thrilling".
As for 2020, first reflect on 2016. I have no doubt Joe Biden would have won at least 1, maybe 2 , of Pa, Mi, and Wi. W/O losing states HRC won.
But the Dems artificially produced a first again, using super delegates to override Sanders. If Dems used GOP % of non-vote driven delegates, Sanders catches fire earlier and wins the nomination.
So the 1st thing Dems should do IMO is give the decision back to the voters, and fully eliminate super delegates.
Democrats should get out of the "demographics" business, and start running on tangible ideas, and not these "everything should be a free give away" nonsense that they always offer.
They've played that card to the point that they're playing poker with the cards facing the table.
Last edited by itshim; 01-08-2017 at 08:39 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
