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.
I am so glad that despite Hillary having a popular vote margin that middle-America still has far more influence in the electoral college and of course with senators then the liberal coasts.
Democrats are the party of the coastal elite now that have nothing in common with middle-America and the south and luckily because the way the country is structured if the South and Midwest vote as a huge Republican bloc it is enough to silence liberalism.
It is so nice that if the Midwest and South votes as a big bloc that liberal Democrats will be powerless.
Similar to the powerlessness that the Midwest and South have when they hear the liberal media elite constantly preaching their bizzare values to middle-America.
Thing is, much of the county is moderate/centrist. Few areas are really THAT monolithic, with the exception of some extremists in far-left urban areas. Most "red" areas are in fact purple. We will vote for the best people, the best ideas and the best policies, regardless of which tag you hang on them. Which is what any intelligent person would do. Sadly, decent people, ideas and policies have been rejected by and from the Democrat Party for the last couple decades. Leaving us with the marginally better Republican party.
The biggest message of this election? We want a president that accepts the RESPONSIBILITY of the President of the United States. One that puts America and the American People first. Not one that feels we have to be the world's police man or sugar daddy. Not one that is always sacrificing the American people for everyone and everything else. One that, well, works to make America great. Not to drive globalism, corporatism or line their own pockets.
Last edited by Toyman at Jewel Lake; 11-12-2016 at 10:32 AM..
Obama appealed to the working class and ran on a platform of bringing jobs back. Clinton was viewed as a Wall Street shill and she did little to correct that image. I think you are failing to hold Clinton responsible for a poorly run campaign. Trump, on the other hand, promoted protectionist policies. He wanted to charge tariffs on imports to entice American companies to remain here. A blue collar worker in the Midwest is going to view those two and will obviously vote for Trump.
People place their self-interests first. People need to work and need jobs. Manufacturing jobs have left the midwest. It's called the rust belt for a reason. Many in the midwest saw Clinton being out of touch with the working class. And truly Clinton did nothing to assure workers that she was gong to try to keep manufacturing jobs in the United States. It's that simple. It has nothing to do with political ideology. It's common sense. If Bernie Sanders had won the nomination, he would have campaigned differently than Clinton. Bernie was all about corporate responsibility and not outsourcing jobs. Residents of the Midwest would have responded to that differently.
Obama appealed to the working class and ran on a platform of bringing jobs back. Clinton was viewed as a Wall Street shill and she did little to correct that image. I think you are failing to hold Clinton responsible for a poorly run campaign. Trump, on the other hand, promoted protectionist policies. He wanted to charge tariffs on imports to entice American companies to remain here. A blue collar worker in the Midwest is going to view those two and will obviously vote for Trump.
People place their self-interests first. People need to work and need jobs. Manufacturing jobs have left the midwest. It's called the rust belt for a reason. Many in the midwest saw Clinton being out of touch with the working class. And truly Clinton did nothing to assure workers that she was gong to try to keep manufacturing jobs in the United States. It's that simple. It has nothing to do with political ideology. It's common sense. If Bernie Sanders had won the nomination, he would have campaigned differently than Clinton. Bernie was all about corporate responsibility and not outsourcing jobs. Residents of the Midwest would have responded to that differently.
Honestly, no, I don't think he did. Perhaps in '08, but certainly not by '12. It was obvious by then that he was beholden to corporatists, to the rich and believed he could buy off the poor in return for votes. Every policy of his has lead to the destruction of the middle class and the biggest economic divide, let alone class warfare, in history. He killed working class jobs, worked to drive prices up on things the middle class needs (especially health insurance). He has saddled the middle class with a DOUBLED national debt. And he has continued to rob the Social Security trust fund to fund his largess. Perhaps worse, he has sold out the American people to EVERYONE. He has more empathy for criminal aliens than working class Americans. More for ME Muslims than the lives of working Americans, let alone the US military. And Clinton was seen as EXACTLY the same, but with a history of corruption and contempt for the American people.
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.
