Can a shock Trump win be completely ruled out?

[Deleted]

But the motives of the Democrats was racial,appealing to blacks and Hispanics. This leaves a void for working class white voters who have been let down by the establishment and parties who have so called represented their interests.

[curiousliberal]

Nov 9, 2016 23:11:46 GMT @barctom said:

But the motives of the Democrats was racial,appealing to blacks and Hispanics. This leaves a void for working class white voters who have been let down by the establishment and parties who have so called represented their interests.

They appealed to blacks and Hispanics in this election mainly because of the disgraceful way in which Donald Trump, and to a lesser extent the Republican Party, had insulted them. His own racism, often dog whistle and occasionally overt, was what drove most ethnic minority groups, even ones that demographically should have been ideologically conservative, to vote for the Democrats.

[carlton43]

Nov 9, 2016 23:27:36 GMT curiousliberal said:

Nov 9, 2016 23:11:46 GMT @barctom said:

But the motives of the Democrats was racial,appealing to blacks and Hispanics. This leaves a void for working class white voters who have been let down by the establishment and parties who have so called represented their interests.

They appealed to blacks and Hispanics in this election mainly because of the disgraceful way in which Donald Trump, and to a lesser extent the Republican Party, had insulted them. His own racism, often dog whistle and occasionally overt, was what drove most ethnic minority groups, even ones that demographically should have been ideologically conservative, to vote for the Democrats.

They appealed to them purely because they wanted their votes to bolster up a flagging party that had lost much of its old heartland by wilful neglect. It was an overtly racist policy cynically deployed and seen to be so which bolstered the trump vote.

[Richard Allen]

Nov 9, 2016 23:11:46 GMT @barctom said:

But the motives of the Democrats was racial,appealing to blacks and Hispanics. This leaves a void for working class white voters who have been let down by the establishment and parties who have so called represented their interests.

I am not a fan of identity politics. The interests of working class people whether White, Hispanic or Black are not so vastly divergent that a political party should not be able to appeal to a significant number of all such groups. Obviously I would favour a more free market direction than the Democratic Party but that is neither here nor there.

Of course for all this talk of working class whites voting on mass for Trump the exit polls suggest that white voters on the lowest incomes went strongly for Clinton. It was those on mid ranging income that went heavily for Trump.

[Deleted]

Nov 10, 2016 0:27:19 GMT Richard Allen said:

Nov 9, 2016 23:11:46 GMT @barctom said:

But the motives of the Democrats was racial,appealing to blacks and Hispanics. This leaves a void for working class white voters who have been let down by the establishment and parties who have so called represented their interests.

I am not a fan of identity politics. The interests of working class people whether White, Hispanic or Black are not so vastly divergent that a political party should not be able to appeal to a significant number of all such groups. Obviously I would favour a more free market direction than the Democratic Party but that is neither here nor there.

Of course for all this talk of working class whites voting on mass for Trump the exit polls suggest that white voters on the lowest incomes went strongly for Clinton. It was those on mid ranging income that went heavily for Trump.

Education is a more interesting variable than income. Trump voters in the primaries also primarily had mid-range income, but were still to a high degree blue collar/non-college. The contractor with 10 employees, or small town hauling company owner, real estate agent etc. 

[Deleted]

Nov 9, 2016 23:27:36 GMT curiousliberal said:

Nov 9, 2016 23:11:46 GMT @barctom said:

But the motives of the Democrats was racial,appealing to blacks and Hispanics. This leaves a void for working class white voters who have been let down by the establishment and parties who have so called represented their interests.

They appealed to blacks and Hispanics in this election mainly because of the disgraceful way in which Donald Trump, and to a lesser extent the Republican Party, had insulted them. His own racism, often dog whistle and occasionally overt, was what drove most ethnic minority groups, even ones that demographically should have been ideologically conservative, to vote for the Democrats.

It's true that the Republicans have a problem with minorities but that's nothing new and, counterintuitively, Trump actually did slightly better with them than Romney -

Exit polls show that Clinton's support among Hispanic voters was just 65 per cent, down from Obama's 71 per cent in 2012 while among black voters support was down from 93 per cent to 88 per cent.

Meanwhile support among Hispanic voters was actually higher for Trump, at 29 per cent, compared to the 27 per cent Romney secured four years ago. link

[carlton43]

Nov 10, 2016 1:29:57 GMT @pieandmash said:

curiousliberal

Thanks for your very thoughtful post, which I shan't quote due to its length. I think you make some interesting points that deserve a response.

1. As you know, my own view is that different peoples should live in their own lands. But in multi-ethnic society, where different ethnicities live rather separate lives, it's inevitable that those people will come to vote in their group interest (unlike say in Brazil, where race is important but people don't vote along racial lines). The (re)awakening of white racial consciousness is long overdue in my view, and it's also a natural reaction to the discourse of 'white privilege' or 'toxic whiteness', etc. that one sees pushed in the media and academia. Many whites can't have failed to notice the 'America is undergoing rapid demographic change; we non-whites are the future (and it will be better when you're gone)' narrative and acted accordingly. But the story of Trump's victory is more complicated than that, and indeed he increased Republican support among all non-white racial groups.

2. The Western policy of 'challenging dictatorships', such as it is – we are perfectly happy to support and arm many dictators after all – has, despite one or two positive notes, been a disaster overall. Can anyone really say that US and Western actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and now Yemen have improved things? Has imposing our will on foreign peoples made things better for either us or them? I look forward to 'isolationism'.

3. This is just hyperbole, and it is also you projecting your own perspective on to world leaders. Leaders like Putin, Duterte and Obran will probably like Trump first and foremost because he will seek better relations with them.

4. The first part is true of course. Trump's victory will embolden the populist right and the far right; indeed we seem to be riding a wave at present, and long may it continue! The second part, however, is nonsense. Muslims are not angry with the West because of immigration policy. They are angry with it because the West persists in invading and bombing Muslim countries and supporting dictatorships that abuse their populations outrageously. Trump, it appears, is far more likely to reverse these disastrous policies, whereas Clinton wanted to intensify them.

5. This may be a valid concern. Personally I hope that he focuses more on core issues like trade, immigration and (a good deal less) foreign policy, but we shall see.

I agree every single word of that.

[john07]

Nov 10, 2016 10:25:40 GMT carlton43 said:

Nov 10, 2016 1:29:57 GMT @pieandmash said:

curiousliberal

Thanks for your very thoughtful post, which I shan't quote due to its length. I think you make some interesting points that deserve a response.

1. As you know, my own view is that different peoples should live in their own lands. But in multi-ethnic society, where different ethnicities live rather separate lives, it's inevitable that those people will come to vote in their group interest (unlike say in Brazil, where race is important but people don't vote along racial lines). The (re)awakening of white racial consciousness is long overdue in my view, and it's also a natural reaction to the discourse of 'white privilege' or 'toxic whiteness', etc. that one sees pushed in the media and academia. Many whites can't have failed to notice the 'America is undergoing rapid demographic change; we non-whites are the future (and it will be better when you're gone)' narrative and acted accordingly. But the story of Trump's victory is more complicated than that, and indeed he increased Republican support among all non-white racial groups.

2. The Western policy of 'challenging dictatorships', such as it is – we are perfectly happy to support and arm many dictators after all – has, despite one or two positive notes, been a disaster overall. Can anyone really say that US and Western actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and now Yemen have improved things? Has imposing our will on foreign peoples made things better for either us or them? I look forward to 'isolationism'.

3. This is just hyperbole, and it is also you projecting your own perspective on to world leaders. Leaders like Putin, Duterte and Obran will probably like Trump first and foremost because he will seek better relations with them.

4. The first part is true of course. Trump's victory will embolden the populist right and the far right; indeed we seem to be riding a wave at present, and long may it continue! The second part, however, is nonsense. Muslims are not angry with the West because of immigration policy. They are angry with it because the West persists in invading and bombing Muslim countries and supporting dictatorships that abuse their populations outrageously. Trump, it appears, is far more likely to reverse these disastrous policies, whereas Clinton wanted to intensify them.

5. This may be a valid concern. Personally I hope that he focuses more on core issues like trade, immigration and (a good deal less) foreign policy, but we shall see.

I agree every single word of that.

Quelle surprise!

[carlton43]

In Market Terms the Trump victory may come to be seen as a 'Necessary Correction'!

[neilm]

Nov 7, 2016 22:41:20 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

Trump doesn't have a particularly good polling day operation in any one battleground state

I've just spotted this (I'm barely looking at the forum at the moment). This isn't a criticism of EAL but a comment on this perception: I was in both North Carolina and Florida prior to the election and saw no real evidence of Clinton's campaign, and I was looking. I saw a load of Trump volunteers out in NC, lots of yard signs, heard people taking calls from the campaign et cetera and saw some (not a lot) of Trump stuff happening in FL. In my totally subjective experience, there just wasn't a Clinton ground presence (maybe there was in places I didn't go to). It seems to have been a received truth that her ground game was great without any evidence to back that up.