Pepin County was one of the most liberal (white rural) places in America
In my previous post I mentioned that the upper Midwest is the only place where old people are more liberal than the young. Politico has an excellent article on Pepin County, Wisconsin, a small rural county in northern Wisconsin, which helps explain what’s going on. The county voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election from 1976 to 2012. That means they voted against Reagan both times, even as Massachusetts voted for Reagan both times. That’s how liberal Pepin County is. Almost the exact opposite of what used to be called “ultra-conservative” Orange County, California (Now Hillary country).
If you had told me that Pepin County voted for Trump I would not have been totally shocked. After all, that region has been gradually trending red. What did shock me is that Trump won Pepin County by a massive landslide—59% to 35%. Quite a change in just 4 years.
Not consider the following. Pepin County has had a steady inflow of people over the past few decades. Were these unpopular minorities, which caused the county to turn conservative? No, it’s still 98% white. The migrants were liberals from the Twin Cities, just over the state line. So now you have an already very liberal area, which then receives a substantial inflow of very liberal people from liberal Minneapolis/St. Paul, and then the country suddenly ends up ultra-conservative?
As Donald Trump takes the oath of office—a phrase that still has the power to make those on the left shudder in shock—an easy way to process the election is that people in rural areas all over America loathe Washington and New York and San Francisco and Hollywood and finally had a chance to show it in a big way. But Pepin County is one of those rural areas, and the resentment isn’t just directed at the coasts. It’s local. Here, the urban elite isn’t a faceless, distant other: It’s the enclave of liberal, mostly Twin Cities newcomers who have moved here over the past few decades—not just an abstract political imposition, but an actual physical presence. It has spawned anger and bitterness, a simmering undercurrent of alienation among many people locally born and raised. It has made “Democrat” mean something it didn’t mean a generation ago. And it was made manifest on November 8.
. . .
“We have found a whole community here,” said Pat Carlson, Wally Zick’s wife, “of very like-minded—it’s going to sound elite—but bookish, artsy, I’d say compassionate … organic foodies, the whole nine yards. It’s all transplants. It’s mostly liberals.” As for this election, and the locals, she continued, “I think they thought the liberal elite was looking down on them, and I guess, in some ways, we were. Because we couldn’t believe anybody would vote for Trump.”
Zick described a fault line here between the old and the new, the people who have lived in the county forever and the move-ins from over the Minnesota border, clustered primarily on the southwestern end of the county. “They don’t come here,” Zick said. “We don’t go there.”
“We don’t know them,” Carlson, 72, said.
“I could ask them, ‘Why did you vote for Trump?’” Zick said. “Then what would I do about it?”
“You don’t want to make them mad,” Carlson said.
Unemployment is only 3%, but people who want good jobs tend to leave:
The 2 percent of the population in Pepin County that isn’t white are mainly Mexicans who milk the cows now, instead of the people who used to: the sons and daughters of the farmers. These migrant laborers have been fixtures on farms in Wisconsin for going on 20 years, and few locals are clamoring for their jobs. “The white boys won’t do that kind of work,” not anymore, Mesch told me. But none of that changes the fact that one page of the county’s weekly newspaper packed with pictures of dads with their kids and the deer they shot is followed by another page stocked with classified ads that say things like “NIGHT MILKER WANTED,” “Hablo Espanol.”
Meanwhile, many of the smartest, most enterprising youth from Pepin County—as in so many counties like it—have been leaving for college and never coming back.
The Democrat’s social agenda pushed lots of people over to the GOP:
John Andrews, 68, was the sheriff in Pepin County for 28 years. He is a Republican. He used to be a Democrat, though—and not just any Democrat, but the boss of the Pepin County Democrats, the position currently held by Bruce Johnson. Andrews told me he switched parties in the mid-2000s after the newcomers started coming to the meetings. “They actually took over the party,” he said.
He agrees with Komisar’s opinion concerning the overemphasis on “the social agenda.”
“When the people came in—and the things that they were trying to push on the rest of us—that’s why I left,” Andrews added. “I didn’t want to deal with these people. I didn’t want to be a part of what they were a part of. You’re talking about people from the Cities who are very progressive. I call them tree-huggers, a bunch of tree-huggers. They referred to us, meaning the people who’ve lived here and worked here all our lives, as a bunch of hicks. They just think they’re a little bit better than everybody else, and that we’re not as smart.”
And the following is very different from when I lived in Wisconsin:
At the top of the pole was an American flag. Right below the American flag was a Confederate flag. It’s not something Myklebust had seen before.
Helen Kees, 65, Pepin County born and raised, called the Confederate flag at that house and others she saw elsewhere around the county “a new thing.”
When I lived there, Wisconsin was a liberal state that looked down on “dumb, redneck southerners”. The following passage discusses the state I recall, which is now dying out very rapidly:
In Pepin County, I met predominantly two kinds of Clinton voters: the Twin Cities progressives, and aging farmers or their descendants. Alex Johnson is the Democrat who said Trump had lit Pepin County “on fire.” He’s an earnest farm kid who was salutatorian at Pepin High. And he’s a Democrat—because his father was a Democrat, and his father was a Democrat because his father was a Democrat. And that was because of the Depression, when a lot of people needed help, and farmers in Pepin County and elsewhere got some from President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the federal government.
Phyllis Seyffer grew up in Pepin County, too. “My dad was a solid Democrat, a dairy farmer,” she told me. Why? “The Depression,” she said.
When I sat down with John Caturia, a retired dairy farmer, he said the same thing: “A generation ahead of us went through the Depression, and the Democratic Party brought it out of the Depression and gave people some hope and gave them a chance to make a living.”
Alex Johnson is 24. But Phyllis Seyffer is 74. And John Caturia is 86. “There aren’t very many of them left anymore, people my age,” Caturia said.
This is only a small selection of the article; I’d encourage you to read the whole thing, especially if you are a Democrat trying to figure out how to rebuild your party.
PS. Tiny Pepin County is home to a famous American writer.
PS. The way the Politico article discussed the decline of old liberalism in rural Wisconsin reminded me of this Economist article about Ohio, again showing confusion among old-style liberals as to why others are leaving the fold:
The decline of institutions has directly enabled Mr Trump’s rise among unionised workers. Ohio’s construction unions have endorsed Mrs Clinton, and in recent elections Mr DiGennaro reckons that would have been enough to ensure around 80% of his 7,500 members voted Democratic. But he expects 40% to vote for Mr Trump on November 8th—and that was before visiting the worksite. “It could be higher”, he said afterwards. “Thank God the blacks and Latinos can see through Trump’s bullshit. I’m embarrassed by it.”
Another enabling factor is that the bullshit was already familiar to millions of whites, because of the decline of another important institution, the mainstream media. Many of Mr Trump’s supporters are more likely to get their information from right-wing blogs and talk-radio shows, which for the past two decades have been pushing hateful slanders against liberals, immigrants and non-whites. It can be disconcerting at Mr Trump rallies to hear how thoroughly their nonsense is believed. “I can’t think of anything Trump could do that would stop me voting for him,” said Suzy Carter, a computer programmer in Delaware, who was convinced Mrs Clinton had had “over 100” people killed, which made her decision to vote for Mr Trump an easy one.
A year ago I speculated that minorities would save us from Sanders and Trump. They saved us from Sanders, but not Trump. What the heck is wrong with white people!
PPS. Timothy Taylor has a very good article on what it would take to convince him that he was wrong about Trump. During the campaign I made two claims:
1. I have no idea at all what Trump will do as President. I still don’t.
2. If he does what he campaigned on, or even close to it, he’ll be a disaster.
I believe there is basically no chance he’ll do what he campaigned on, so that won’t be an issue. Thus there’s really nothing that could make me change my views of Trump, except obviously in the sense of clarifying things that I was previously uncertain about. So far the signs are not good:
1. I think his campaign was despicable demagoguery, and I’ll still think that if he turns out to be a better President than Washington.
2. I think his behavior as President-elect is the worst I’ve ever seen, and I’ll always think that.
3. I think his inaugural address was a despicable xenophobic rant, blaming foreigners for our self-induced problems, and I’ll always think that.
Perhaps I’ll later think he was a great President. Anything is possible, and that would be a very good outcome. But I almost certainly will not re-evaluate my past views, unless he does what he said he would do, and the economy turns out fine. (In that case I’ll say I was wrong.) But he won’t do what he said he’d do. He won’t pay off the national debt in 8 years. He won’t renegotiate the national debt. He won’t expel 11 million illegals. He won’t get rid of Obamacare. He won’t enact the tax cut he promised me. He won’t assassinate family members of terrorists. He won’t get Mexico to pay for the wall. He won’t try to prosecute Hillary Clinton. He won’t do a hundred other things he said he’d do. His success will depend on what he actually does.
But his campaign was a disgrace, and always will be.
HT: Tyler Cowen
Tags:
21. January 2017 at 07:40
It depends on what you mean by “liberal”. These days liberalism seems to be splitting apart. Social liberals and economic liberals at loggerheads. Quite a lot of this erosion of solid democratic areas not just in Wisconsin but the solid south areas like Kentucky which Mr Clinton won were lost due to social liberalism. Ironically Trump was able to convince these rubes that he is a fiscal liberal and social conservative.
21. January 2017 at 07:46
Yes, you are referring to the cultural divide. I see it all the time…coastal liberals who despise flyover states and their people and these feelings are naturally reciprocated… But it is not only in flyover states, it really anywhere outside the major urban areas.
The democrats are so clueless. My mother grew up in Iowa, family of 11. Her parents were card carrying Roosevelt democrats. The first republican the they voted for was Reagan in his second term…and the main reason was their Catholic faith and the abortion issue. The other thing the democrats (and Trump) do not understand is that cultural divide is just as strong between those Mexican american voters as non-urban whites…
The other change of course is the change in unions and manufacturing. When I was growing up, it was always a them vs. us mentality. Well, when you are off the factory floor and involved with a small business, your viewpoint changes drastically.
21. January 2017 at 07:52
Professor, what are your thoughts about the performance of US president Chester A. Arthur? Underrated? Better than Coolidge? (Or at least his equal?) Certainly underappreciated, you will agree. Just to save you the Google search, he instituted in the days of “Tammany Hall” US civil servant reforms as we know them today. Please also blog about Trump teams plans (Heritage Foundation backed) to cut all Fed programs by 50% (except for the US military, SS, Medicare).
21. January 2017 at 07:58
Benny, You said:
“Ironically Trump was able to convince these rubes that he is a fiscal liberal and social conservative.”
Yes, you are of course describing the exact opposite of libertarianism. (He’s also authoritartian on civil liberties.) Which is why it’s odd that so many libertarians seem to like him.
21. January 2017 at 08:28
I don’t find it odd at all. I think that deep down most “libertarians” are social conservatives.
21. January 2017 at 08:34
Scott,
Perhaps libertarians have noticed that no one has stemmed the scourge of government overreach in the US over the past hundred years. Even Reagan with his landslide victory barely made a dent (despite saving much of the world from slavery).
Going for the high risk play rarely works. Hence the risk. But when all else fails…
21. January 2017 at 08:44
Maybe it’s a microcosm, but Pepin County only has about 7,500 people according to Wikipedia. Is that enough to be representative?
21. January 2017 at 09:18
Benny, Not the one’s I’ve met.
Perhaps, History teaches us that this is a very bad idea. When a country is a 97 or 98 on a zero to 100 scale, you can only rise to 100 at the highest, but you can fall all the way to zero. High risk strategies are appropriate for places like North Korea, which have little to lose.
Daniel, Definitely it’s not a microcosm, even of the state of Wisconsin. Trump won by running up surprising large margins in affluent Milwaukee suburbs, like Waukesha County, which had voted strongly against Trump in the race with Cruz. The traditional GOP “went home” in the general election. That why Trump was able to win Wisconsin. He was also helped by the low turnout of black voters in Wisconsin.
What I found interesting about the article is that it was a microcosm of SOMETHING, a split between traditional economic liberals and modern social liberals. The fact that highly educated social liberals are so offensive to traditional economic liberals that they turn them into conservatives is new to me.
21. January 2017 at 09:43
Scott, moving my reply here from previous thread.
You are right I misread the confederate flag comment. I have a larger point though, that I see exactly the same things happening in NH as in Pepin County, and at the risk of projecting too much I suspect the “hearts and minds” of Wisconsin are similar to the yankees in NH.
In that vein, I’ve seen confederate flags, and gadsden flags in NH, but I’m pretty sure the confederate flag is just one guy who drives everywhere with it flying above his truck. However if you surveyed NH, I bet you’d find people from all over who’ve seen confederate flags. That’s my issue the narrative bias.
The point of the article that I’m confident is ubiquitous, is the “city people think we’re stupid” quotation. I’ve seen an Indian guy (tourist) chewing out a McDonald’s cashier because he didn’t like the way the receipt was itemized. She replied “that’s the way the computer does it”. Or a park ranger getting yelled at by a Bostonian (tourist); the ranger “didn’t know anything” bc he’d had never been to Kilimanjaro, and the tourist had. Everyone has anecdotes like this; nasty city people.
As far as Pepin County being representative, yes! St Croix, Buffalo, even Waukesha Counties had basically the same results. You may be aware that Trump would’ve won NH, too, without that megalopolis of Hanover. Then Politico would’ve done a piece “what happened to Coos County” (Obama by 18, Trump by 10) or Belknap County (Romney by 5, Trump by 17). And there were similarly big shifts in Minnesota counties, but like NH, those don’t get play because Trump didn’t win (this time).
It’ll be interesting to see what happens. Trump is a con guy who can’t do what he promised. On the other hand, I don’t think Democrats are capable of reform, because the condescension comes from the grassroots (of the city people). And there are still Democrats like my Grandma, who vote for Hillary because she doesn’t realize OSHA already happened, and those factory jobs are mostly gone anyway–so more rural voters for Democrats to lose.
21. January 2017 at 09:55
“Thank God the blacks and Latinos can see through Trump’s bullshit. I’m embarrassed by it.”
-The average Black IQ is 86. The average Hispanic IQ is 91. Perhaps that’s why Blacks and Hispanics voted for Clinton, an unelectable hack, over Sanders, who would have benefited them far more than HRC and have easily triumphed over Trump (though not in Pepin County), in the primary.
21. January 2017 at 10:00
“When a country is a 97 or 98 on a zero to 100 scale, you can only rise to 100 at the highest, but you can fall all the way to zero. High risk strategies are appropriate for places like North Korea, which have little to lose.”
-Exactly. That’s why I supported Trump over Clinton. Clinton supported moving America to the direction of Mexico. Trump didn’t.
21. January 2017 at 10:01
“What the heck is wrong with white people!”
-Move to Nigeria.
21. January 2017 at 10:26
If you want to know something about media narrative, this is singularly the best photo from yesterday. It speaks 10,000 words.
https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/822575620655812608
21. January 2017 at 10:42
I had similar observations as the Pepin County article in the past. A rough sketch could look like this:
Most rural people (of the Western world) have similar values and similar political opinions. They elect different parties mostly for historical reasons and to distinguish them from other rural that live pretty far away. But at the core they are all conservative people. When they get overrun or otherwise threatened by actual hardcore liberal people from the city, the “near” aspect of their voting behavior (real liberals at their doorstep) becomes more important than the “far” aspect (voting pattern of their grandfather; archenemies in the South).
21. January 2017 at 12:48
@E. Harding – first, too bad you did not have the guts to stick to your prediction about Trump winning on the eve of the election. You have to live with that the rest of your life. Second, “-Move to Nigeria” you should know Nigeria and places like that (including the Philippines) have some of the highest rates of happiness anywhere on the planet. Life is a constant fiesta in PH even though the people are poor. It’s a lot more fun than the USA (but not to make money). Third, if you’re so smart, where’s your Nobel Prize? Why aren’t you in the 1% like I am? ‘Nuff said.
21. January 2017 at 13:12
you should know Nigeria and places like that (including the Philippines) have some of the highest rates of happiness anywhere on the planet.
Marvelous. So Harding is right. Move to Nigeria.
(I wonder why we get overrun by people from Nigeria then and why no one is going the other way but I guess that’s another story.)
21. January 2017 at 13:32
“[H]is campaign was a disgrace, and always will be.” OK, but note also that his campaign was *successful*. Does that not imply that the American electorate is also a *disgrace*–that at least a large plurality really are “deplorables”? Some of the ire and contempt you pour on Trump should be reserved for *the American people*.
21. January 2017 at 13:58
This is Sumner’s cognitive dissonance. He can only explain Trump’s election, especially his wins in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, by believing Trump lied and fooled the people into supporting him.
21. January 2017 at 14:14
Bravo Scott
Let’s not waste the best crisis since WW2.
21. January 2017 at 14:20
One of Sumner’s huge blindspots is he doesn’t see how devisive, partisan and ideological Obama was in his rhetoric and policies. In fact he writes that Obama is the most professional politician of our time. Professional or not Obama had an ideology and he was going to follow it no matter how unpopular it was with the heartland. In this way Obama turned tens of millions of voters away from the Democratic party.
21. January 2017 at 14:30
Honestly I don’t believe that most libertarians are anything other than good old fashioned conservatives and I have devised a litmus test of sorts that separates the fiscal social aspects and libertarians pick the big government conservative every time.
Places like Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania have been trending red for a long time now. Not just in terms of presidential elections but the makeup of the legislature and the governorships. So I don’t take this one county as a bellwether and this election as not very special. This has been a long time coming for a lot of reasons but mostly, for lack of a better term, “culture wars”. Sad!
21. January 2017 at 15:45
I couldn’t control my reaction to his, so I’ve split my response into two merely far-too-long comments. First part, how Pepin County got this way…
~~~
If you had told me that Pepin County voted for Trump I would not have been totally shocked. After all, that region has been gradually trending red…
One county is barely even an anecdote. Look at every county in the USA and a clear picture of a process occurring emerges. The always excellent Sean Trende does this in a new series of articles.
E.g.: This puts Pepin County in context. “Consider the [county-by-county political map of] Wisconsin in 2000. Given a Democratic coalition that looked like this, it isn’t surprising that they were able to win in five districts over the course of the decade … But given this? [map of 2016] How much can Democrats accomplish?”
Trump did *not* win these counties in November. The Republicans won these counties over the last 15 years and gave them to Trump. Big difference! With lots of consequences for electoral analysis.
During Obama’s entire term the marginal counties — ones that previously swung back and forth between voting D then R (for Gore then Bush, etc.) – have *en masse* solidly turned Republican. Look at the changing county maps everywhere.
The result is the Republicans have taken historic control of politics at the state level. When Obama came in the Democrats controlled 27 state legislatures, the Repubs 14. Now the Repubs control 32 and with 24 have the governor too. The Democrats control only 13, with the governor in only 6. Nationwide, the Republicans are the strongest they’ve been in 80 years.
This is not an accident. The Obama-Pelosi-Biden regime has followed a clear policy of deepening their base while sending the marginal voters to the Repubs. This is great for fundraising but terrible for winning elections.
Look at their choice of issues. In 2009 polls “health care” was *nowhere* compared to “the economy” and “jobs” – but they kept Fed seats empty for years while spending massive political capital on Obamacare. Same with “global warming” and their cap-and-trade law. See election results of 2010. Since then, see the issues they’ve chosen to highlight in the media wars (via the WH web site for starters): LGTB bathroom rights, campus rape, ethnic identity politics of every kind, etc. Plays great in big cities, on campuses and at activist fundraisers, elsewhere … look at the map changes.
Both parties have their congenital defects. The Liberal Dems have inherited the Old Progressives’ “We’re better than you, but after we force you to do what we want you’ll finally learn it in spite of yourselves and thank us” gene. So they spent two years with Obamacare underwater in the polls forcing it through, telling themselves “eventually the masses will love it like they do Social Security and Medicare”. Oblivious to the reality that FDR and LBJ made sure they had huge majorities in favor *before* pushing those through.
And let us be honest enough to admit this superiority is backed by some contempt for the marginal voters. From Carville’s dismissing former members of the FDR’s coalition as “trailer trash – drag a hundred dollars through a trailer park and there’s no telling what you’ll find”, to Obama’s “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion”. Even here in uber-Left NYC, I know two people – well off, socially liberal, highly educated – who pulled the lever to vote against the Democrats (not for Trump) citing that quote. Do you think the people Obama was actually talking about don’t remember? Look that those changing county maps.
21. January 2017 at 15:46
Benny,
The Democratic Party has become increasing urban and ideologically focused on racial and gender identity politics. There is little if not nothing that the Democratic Party offers to those living in rural America. The Republican Party, at the national level, is morally bankrupt – this is why Trump as an outsider won the GOP nomination. At the state level the Republican Party is very strong as it demonstrates competent governance and an ability to prioritize issues.
One of the many details Sumner misses is that Trump had a positive message. He did not win Wisconsin because of negative statements. He won the support of voters because he campaigned for their vote! He said he would represent their interests. In other words, he did what all competent politicians do – you ask for the people’s vote by offering to the people representation on matters that concern them!
21. January 2017 at 15:56
Second, as a result, what really happened in the election…
~~
Trende notes that over these years the Democrats have self-gerrymandered themselves out of Senate power … the Repubs have gained more, broader and deeper organizations across the states … a far deeper bench of future candidates … *and*, as if that all isn’t enough, a structural advantage in the electoral college. Note well that Trump had nothing to do with any of this.
Political reality on the ground is…
1) Trump didn’t win – he drew a smaller percentage of eligible voters than did McCain and Romney, ‘bad losers’ both, 27.2% versus 28.1% and 27.4%.
Plainly, Hillary and the Democrats lost. Hillary as she failed to get millions of Democrats who voted for Obama to vote for her. The Democrats via the big handicaps they have imposed on themselves as per above, compounded by nominating the second-worst candidate via favorable-unfavorable in polling history. (And still Trump just barely won!)
2) The Republicans who control the big majority of states carried Trump in and would have carried in *any* Republican over Hillary. (As Trump himself proves! With his even worse favorables than hers.) The conservative Evangelical Christians voted for Trump – lifelong Manhattan liberal pro-abortion sex-pig that he is – because he *wasn’t a Democrat*. And while the Democrats rant aghast-and-uncomprehending about it, it’s exactly what *they did* in following the Feminist left in rallying around sex pig Bill Clinton. What were they going to do, turn Republican?
Trende notes that regime-change elections are always anti-incumbent. But the winners typically immodestly conclude people voted *for* them so they have a mandate, and over-reach. See Obama 2008-10, Clinton 1992-4. (If Trump, who starts from a far weaker personal starting point than those two did, does this he’s going to get clobbered. The Dems should be egging him on!) This election no less. It was not pro-Trump.
The bottom line is that everyone who goes on endlessly fixated about “Trump won! how did people vote for him? why? inexplicable! big deep meaning!” etc, is missing the point.
Trump barely squeaked in, with fewer votes than the two prior Repub losers, ahead of the second-most unpopular candidate in modern history, whose party is structurally handicapped by all of the above. There is *no* evidence of any rise of “Trump populism” visible in any of that. Zilch.
The idea is an illusion born of self-interest on both sides. (Trumpistas: “We won a revolution! Mandate!” Left Democrats: “Stupid average people being stupid yet again. It’s spread out of Kansas. Nothing wrong with us!”)
OTOH, the rise of the Republican party to unmatched power across so many states over the last generation is a very real thing, plenty meaningful and worth pondering. But who on this blog, or anywhere else, is talking about it?
21. January 2017 at 16:12
Scott,
Could you explain what you mean by demagoguery and give specific examples of how Trump’s campaign was demagogic.
Also what is “despicable” demagoguery. Are there non-despicable forms of demagoguery?
The thing that strikes me about the liberal and MSM reaction to Trump (and his appointments) is that it’s 99% ad-hominem. Their world is about to blow up, and they’re talking about Trumps’s ego and Melania’s dress.
21. January 2017 at 16:17
Jim Glass,
Very good comments. I would also be interested in your view of how Trump was the Republican primary.
21. January 2017 at 16:18
How trump WON (not was) the Replublican primary.
21. January 2017 at 16:19
Jim Glass, outstanding posts. Very well done.
21. January 2017 at 16:20
@dtoh: both sides do this. All the Obama hate was entirely ad hominem too.
21. January 2017 at 16:41
“Pepin County has had a steady inflow of people over the past few decades. Were these unpopular minorities, which caused the county to turn conservative? No,…the migrants were liberals from the Twin Cities…”
So, isn’t that a “yes”? At least, that’s what Pepin County’s old-timers might say. 🙂
“The fact that highly educated social liberals are so offensive to traditional economic liberals that they turn them into conservatives is new to me.”
This is what Trump supporters mean when they say that “political correctness” is what drove them to vote for Trump. One might say that social liberals make rural and working class whites feel unsafe and unwelcome.
“[Trump] won’t get rid of Obamacare”
How would you define repealing Obamacare, e.g., would putting uninsurables with pre-existing conditions into high-risk pools, separated from insurables count? I think it is highly unlikely that Trump will veto an Obamacare repeal bill passed by Congress. What makes you think that Trump will veto or otherwise block a repeal effort or that Paul Ryan won’t pass one?
21. January 2017 at 16:43
@msgkings I would disagree.
21. January 2017 at 17:11
Trump’s inauguration speech is the blueprint for the Donks, if they want to win the White House.
21. January 2017 at 17:36
Dan,
The Democrats offered rural voters low cost health insurance through the ACA and lower tuition bills. But they, like you, see only “culture wars”. I will laugh so hard if they do repeal Obamacare and all those rubes lose their insurance because they thought Trump wouldn’t repeal the ACA.
There have been numerous stories about these Trump voters here is just one. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/12/27/these-coal-country-voters-backed-trump-now-theyre-worried-about-losing-obamacare/?client=safari
In fact one of trumps first executive orders was to up the premiums homebuyers will pay for FHA. How many of these people are trump voters ?
But hey gay marriage and trans bathrooms!
21. January 2017 at 18:40
“Move to Nigeria”…I know plenty of hardworking Nigerian Americans who do in fact plan on moving to Nigeria to retire. 401k and social security go a lot farther there, plus they had their kids in the US and have them set up for college and a lifetime of success (due to hard work and good parenting).
Also, they miss their homeland and they have family there. Not sure what the point of that comment is besides racism against one of the most successful immigrant groups. Which is plainly stupid. They speak English and work hard, what the hell are you complaining about?
21. January 2017 at 19:31
Benny,
Trump was for gay marriage before Obama. Look it up. As for who can use the women’s room this was a non-issue until the Obama administration decided to make it one. Again, look it up.
The political reality is the Republican party has never held as much power as it does now. Why?
21. January 2017 at 20:09
Dan,
Donald Trump promised to ban gay marriage:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/donald-trump-trust-me-to-overturn-the-shocking-gay-marriage-decision/
Look it up!
See gay marriage and trans bathrooms. Even you are mad about this bathroom thing.
Seems like Repunlican power is at its zenith because of culture wars resonating with a group of geographically important people. In America some votes are worth more than others.
21. January 2017 at 20:21
Scott,
from what I saw in the transition and the first hours of the presidency, including that nauseating speech, Trump is turning out more Hitler in style than assumed both by supporters and detractors. He really seems to believe his awful ideas on trade, press reporting, the CIA, Russia etc. A reactionary revolutionary.
List,
there is no “we”, and Nigerians especially aren’t “overrunning” anyone. The only ones running lately were Syrians and they added, uh, in the order of 1% to the German population over the course of a year. If you’re deathly afraid of being overrun by invaders on foot totaling 1% of your population, the invaders being the poorest chaps on the planet right now, your country isn’t worth much.
Side note, no one seems to be running into Russia. One wonders why.
21. January 2017 at 21:49
dtoh and msgkings, thanks for the kind words.
But maybe I was a little heavy on the politics on those posts. More briefly…
The full and in depth true story of Trump’s hair, maybe. (What are we going to do without Gawker?) … Remember back when The Donald was attacked by a Bald Eagle named Uncle Sam? The Romans would have considered that an omen.
21. January 2017 at 23:19
Scott,
The analysis about decline of union power helping Trump(and increasing support for Trump among union members) was well known in “left” media. For instance, here is an (unscientific) survey by the AFL-CIO over a year ago (http://www.workingamerica.org/frontporchfocusgroup). They found that Trump was by far the first choice of people who had decided on a candidate, among other things.
E. Harding, your average IQ argument is silly, but even if we accept it: Jews and Asians both have higher IQ than whites and they both voted mostly for Dems. And college educated people tend to have higher IQs than non-college educated people, and they tended to vote Dem. GG Thx 4 playing.
22. January 2017 at 03:58
@JimGlass and all the others
Trump barely squeaked in, with fewer votes than the two prior Repub losers
I’m sorry but you are completely wrong. I mean you seem to be pretty educated guys but you still believe in this stuff which is kind of astonishing. At what point in your life do you want to leave your bubble of comforting lies and get in touch with reality? I mean (regarding this point) even Breitbart is less fake news than you are. Trump got two million (!) more votes than Romney did in 2012. So much to your awesome theory.
Hillary as she failed to get millions of Democrats who voted for Obama to vote for her.
Another common misconception. You seem to imply that Hillary got far less votes than Obama but in fact she didn’t. She got pretty much exactly the same number of votes that Obama got in 2012.
The Republicans who control the big majority of states carried Trump in and would have carried in *any* Republican over Hillary.
That’s in interesting theory but as always with alternate history you can’t really prove or disprove it. You can only give very rough estimations that are often worse than gut feelings. My gut feeling would be that all those guys who lost in a landslide against Trump would have lost to Hillary as well.
I mean you guys seem to think Trump was an exceptionally bad candidate, a huge loser. Okay let’s assume that he was, but then why in the world would the guys who even lost to the uber-loser win anything? There’s absolutely no logic in that, I’m sorry.
I’d say the opposite: Hillary would have won against nearly any other GOP candidate (especially from the field that was actually running in the primaries) and I also say that even Trump’s win was a pretty lucky 1:5- to 1:3-gutshot that would have been very hard to repeat just 1-2 weeks later (not to mention earlier).
22. January 2017 at 04:52
Pepin County was one of the most liberal (white rural) places in America…
…until they met the “real” liberals from the city in person.
22. January 2017 at 05:39
For Benny,
Trump was pro-gay in 2000. Obama was anti-gay in 2008. Hmmmmm.
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/255187/
22. January 2017 at 06:29
@Christian List
Fair comment. I thought the general election was impressive but not exceptional. Trump swung some marginal voters.
The primary was exceptional, but I’m not sure if it was a case of the right guy in the right place at the right time or if Trump was a genius.
22. January 2017 at 07:39
Dan W,
Your link was pretty weak. Donald made a campaign promise to undo gay marriage and, with the Supreme Court nomination, has the chance to. Was he lying about that? Is he really pro gay marriage? Doesn’t this whole argument simply reinforce Scott’s thesis exactly? He promised to be both pro and anti gay. The rubes clearly bought something he was selling. Was it locking up Hillary? Building a wall and making Mexico pay for it? Spending lots of money on infrastructure?
I don’t agree with Scott on too many things but look at the evidence he presents. I wonder what the poor folks in coal country will do in 4 years when the coal jobs haven’t come back and they lost their health care? My guess is the rubes will still vote for a social conservative if one runs. Gays and trans bathrooms.
22. January 2017 at 07:40
Christian and Jim –
“The Republicans who control the big majority of states carried Trump in and would have carried in *any* Republican over Hillary.
That’s in interesting theory but as always with alternate history you can’t really prove or disprove it.”
You can’t prove it, but if you look at the Republican candidate vs. the general House Republican vote(wikipedia):
President (R) House Republican Difference
Trump 45.9 % 49.1 % -3.2 %
Romney 47.2 % 47.6 % -0.4 %
McCain 45.7 % 42.6 % +3.1 %
That indicates that Trump was a terrible candidate in a year almost ant Republican would have won, Romney was an OK candidate in a competitive year, and McCain was an excellent candidate in a year that any Republican would have lost.
22. January 2017 at 07:58
Jim Glass wrote:
“Trump didn’t win – he drew a smaller percentage of eligible voters than did McCain and Romney, ‘bad losers’ both, 27.2% versus 28.1% and 27.4%…”
Christian List acutely responded:
I’m sorry but you are completely wrong. I mean you seem to be pretty educated guys but you still believe in this stuff which is kind of astonishing. At what point in your life do you want to leave your bubble of comforting lies and get in touch with reality? I mean (regarding this point) even Breitbart is less fake news than you are…
Year — Eligible voters
2008 — 213,313,508 … McCain 59,948,323 … 28.1%
2012 — 222,474,111 … Romney 60,933,504 … 27.4%
2106 — 231,556,622 …. Trump 62,980,160 … 27.2%
“… Plainly, Hillary and the Democrats lost. Hillary as she failed to get millions of Democrats who voted for Obama to vote for her…”
Another common misconception. You seem to imply that Hillary got far less votes than Obama but in fact she didn’t.
Even just counting *actual* votes:
Obama 2008: 69,498,516
Clinton 2016: 65,845,063
Subtract the second number from the first. How many real people *actually* voted for Obama but didn’t vote for Hillary?
For bonus points, take Obama’s 69,498,516 and subtract Trump’s 62,980,160 from an electorate that was *18.2 million people larger*.
OTOH, if you insist on ignoring both the size of the electorate and Obama’s actual votes, to count only Trump’s actual votes, here’s really *good news* for you: Trump got far more votes than Reagan did in 1984 winning 49 states! Woo Hoo! The Revolution has come! Tell your friends! Joy in Bubbleland!
22. January 2017 at 08:01
Scott,
While I’m certainly not saying this perspective is without truth, I can’t help but think the extremely slow recovery, after the trauma of the financial crisis and the perception that many elites are incompetent and/or complicit in bringing about these results is the far bigger problem.
I don’t think many would have cared so much about which restrooms transgendered pople use, if they’d felt good about their economic prospects and progress over the past 8 years. Many failures of the Bush administration still linger also, like the Iraq fiasco, which helps undermine confidence in establishment opinion.
We also shouldn’t underestimate the weakness of Clinton as a candidate.
In other words, while there were many factors contributing to Trump winning, the Fed is primarily to blame, followed by really stupid management by Democrats.
22. January 2017 at 08:59
This election took place in the context of a country that has been steadily losing faith in the federal government’s ability to govern. Those old liberals with faith in the federal government’s competence and helpfulness are being replaced by voters animated by moralistic arguments for the Democratic Party. That will leave them vulnerable to Berlusconi types on the right who mock them as sanctimonious incompetents.
22. January 2017 at 09:16
Carl,
I think you’re very wrong. I don’t think this election was a repudiation of liberalism at all. I think a radical left wing candidate could easily have won. I don’t have recent polling, but many Trump voters I’ve met said they would have voted for Sanders, had he won the nomination.
Times like these tend to favor both left-wing and right-wing extremists.
22. January 2017 at 10:01
Scott Freelander:
I didn’t say this election showed that voters had rejected liberalism and endorsed conservatism at the federal level. I said voters were losing faith in the federal government’s ability to govern. That can open the door to more radical candidates on both sides by undermining the defenses of process candidates.
Nevertheless, my experience with Trump voters was different than yours. My Trump voting friends would have voted for Hillary before they voted for Bernie.
22. January 2017 at 10:26
I think a radical left wing candidate could easily have won. I don’t have recent polling, but many Trump voters I’ve met said they would have voted for Sanders
The Republicans had an oppo research file on Sanders that was brutal. Hillary couldn’t use any of it against him because she was too weak, she couldn’t afford to lose any of his supporters (obviously).
But the Repubs would have used it to tear him apart over hot fires.
The case “Bernie would’ve won” is pretty well challenged here by a left-sider, citing some of the contents of that file.
“2. The Myth That Sanders Would Have Won Against Trump”
http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044
My personal opinion is that against Bernie the Repubs would have carried about 54 states.
22. January 2017 at 10:32
Carl,
Fair enough. I misread your comments in some ways.
22. January 2017 at 10:41
Negation of Ideology: Excellent point.
This was a battle of dreadful candidates. Literally the two with the worst unfavorable ratings in history. Hillary must have really *tried* to not learn anything from Bill. Remember all those people in TV interviews who were asked how they were going to vote and answered “Holding my nose to choose”? They were telling the truth. The candidate with the strongest party support didn’t lose.
Obama, by contrast, is a superior candidate, up there William Jefferson and Reagan, and like them he’s always had a team that knows how to run a campaign.
But as a party leader he has been an historic disaster. Since the Civil War there been only one other nationwide state-level party collapse to match what the Democrats have had under Obama, that was circa 1932 and there was a Great Depression behind it. The Trende articles are good on this, here’s a shorter take. Check this map for fun.
The best thing Trump has going for him is the Republican rising tide that he had nothing to do with. If he’s smart he’ll content himself with taking credit for it in public while in private listening to he people really behind it and not doing a dang thing to mess them up. We shall see.
22. January 2017 at 10:42
Everyone, I see lots of commenters who are so blinded by their hatred of “political correctness” (something I also dislike) that they don’t see racism and homophobia if it’s 12 inches in front of their face. Take off your ideological blinders people!
Steve, You said:
“Everyone has anecdotes like this; nasty city people.”
Agreed, but ditto for “nasty country folk”, who have no problem with gays as long as they stay in the closet. There are good and bad people everywhere. In this case I think the bigger problem was different lifestyles; I doubt the Twin City migrants were that nasty. (Remember “Minnesota nice”?
Harding, As soon as you move to Shanghai.
Ray, I know this was directed at Harding:
“Why aren’t you in the 1% like I am? ‘Nuff said.”
But I can’t help answering anyway. Perhaps because Harding didn’t inherit lots of money from his daddy, like you did?
Philo, You said:
“Does that not imply that the American electorate is also a *disgrace*–that at least a large plurality really are “deplorables”?”
Not at all. People vote for many reasons. Lots of Trump voters strongly disliked the guy, but picked him as a lesser of evils. Some did not see the demagogue that I saw.
Jim Glass, Sean Trende is very good. But I’d encourage people to look at Pepin County from more than a national perspective, and focus on the unique aspects of the situation there.
dtoh, I gave specific examples in the previous post. It’s like asking me:
“You say Micheal Jordan was a good basketball player. But I just don’t see it. Could you give me some examples of why you think Michael Jordan was a good basketball player?”
Let me ask you this? Which American politician was more demagogic than Trump? Maybe Huey Long? (He was before my time.)
And Trump won the GOP primaries because the other 16 candidates split the “sane” vote, and people like Bush and Rubio stupidly attacked each other while ignoring Trump (until it was too late.) The GOP should have been releasing “Grab em by the pussy” tapes early in the campaign, before Trump got a head of steam. There was plenty of dirt on Trump (and much of it has not come out yet.)
BC, You are missing part of the picture, see my reply to Steve.
dtoh, You said:
“or if Trump was a genius.”
So when does Trump plan to stop his “imitate a moron” routine, and show us that he is actually a genius?
Jim Glass, Your final comment is very good. Update, second to last.
22. January 2017 at 10:47
Jim Glass,
I didn’t see any polling pitting Sanders against Trump after May, so you could be right, but I don’t think much of any would-be Republican efforts to take Sanders down. 2016 was a very different election year, and notice that no amount of negative info on Trump was quite enough to defeat him. Campaign ads didn’t seem to matter, even Republicans hate and distrust Republican leaders and operatives, and Sanders was praised for his honesty even by Republican pundits who said they’d never vote for him.
The most recent polling I saw back in May had Sanders considerably in front of Trump. With all due respect to the plausible-sounding Newsweek opinion, and others like it I’ve seen, most plausible-sounding opinions held by such authors were simply wrong last year.
It is true that Sanders did not perform as well in the primary as some seem to suggest. He mostly won caucuses, which often aren’t very representative and tend to work to the advantages of more extreme candidates. That said, given the year 2016 was and given that his opponent was Trump, my gut tells me Sanders would have won, for what it’s worth, which may be nothing.
22. January 2017 at 11:14
“Harding, As soon as you move to Shanghai.”
-Nice try, Sumner, but they don’t speak English in Shanghai, and the Chinese are a bit too clannish for my taste, in any case. Maybe I should visit Singapore someday, though. They surely speak English in Lagos.
“Which American politician was more demagogic than Trump?”
-These wise guys:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeB8JG1iHEU
Or perhaps this wise girl:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_soeyHVrawY#t=21m43s
For a prominent and generally undisputed example from the Senate, Harry Reid.
“Sean Trende is very good. But I’d encourage people to look at Pepin County from more than a national perspective, and focus on the unique aspects of the situation there.”
-I don’t see the point of looking at unique aspects when a trend is nationwide.
“And Trump won the GOP primaries because the other 16 candidates split the “sane” vote, and people like Bush and Rubio stupidly attacked each other while ignoring Trump (until it was too late.)”
-This is basically incorrect; Trump won the primaries because most Republicans saw him as the best candidate on the economy and the budget deficit (however ridiculous that may be).
“So when does Trump plan to stop his “imitate a moron” routine, and show us that he is actually a genius?”
-Trump will never stop blatantly lying.
22. January 2017 at 11:44
“they don’t see racism and homophobia if it’s 12 inches in front of their face. Take off your ideological blinders people!”
I don’t think that is it…yes people in the heartland get tired of Hollywood putting a LGBTQ parade on TV every night..but that disintegration of middle and upper middle white society is what it is about. The “American Dream” fading from view like a ship’s mask going out the sea like some Philip Roth novel. Millennials Are Worth Half as Much as Their Parents Were at the Same Age. (http://fortune.com/2017/01/13/millennial-boomer-worth-income-study/)
The solution that most millennials would would choose is a Sanders route, while there parents, remembering Reagan, go for Trump. Hillary, representing the status quo is a loser and unacceptable.
Our economists basically say..all is good we are at 5% unemployment and 2% inflation. “Secular stagnation” is what is wrong, and we can’t do anything about that.
To me, that is like all those supposed experts that talked about “peak oil” 10 years ago. They were not only wrong, they were exponentially wrong, there is enough cheap natural gas to last 100’s of years. Why should we trust policy experts when their track record is so bad. Why not go for this guy who will shake things up. That is what this election is about.
22. January 2017 at 12:08
“blaming foreigners for our self-induced problems”
Sumner stubbornly refuses to listen to anything the Trump crowd has said. Here’s from the immigration restriction group that Peter Thiel has publicly donated money to:
https://www.numbersusa.com/blog/why-we-say-no-immigrant-bashing
Also, Sumner has repeatedly promised that Trump will endorse full blanket amnesty on illegal immigrants. So he can’t be blaming them too much.
“During the campaign I made two claims:
1. I have no idea at all what Trump will do as President. I still don’t.
2. If he does what he campaigned on, or even close to it, he’ll be a disaster.”
This seems inconsistent with your statement during the campaign that:
“My biggest fear has not been Trump himself, but rather that Trump will take over the GOP and turn it into a neoreactionary party.”
22. January 2017 at 12:51
@Jim Glass
Christian List acutely responded:
You are misstating what I said. Yes I “responded” but clearly NOT to your very misleading relative numbers but to this statement:
Trump barely squeaked in, with fewer votes than the two prior Repub losers
And yes, this is of course still wrong.
I can attack your relative numbers as well. I did not write about them because they are pretty useless. The scope is not close enough and not accurate enough. Figures like “213,313,508” imply that those numbers are extremely accurate when in fact they are not accurate at all. They are just pretty rough estimates. Estimates with a margin of error of at least 2-4%. The only real use of those numbers is to conclude that the VAP turnout is about 50-55% since 1972 and that in a two-party-system both parties will of course get around 50% of those votes in the long run. It’s a miracle, who would have thought so.
Trump got far more votes than Reagan did in 1984 winning 49 states!
Trump wasn’t much worse than Reagan in 1980. I actually run the numbers of each winner of each election from 1972 onwards in percent of VAP (since you love your inaccurate relative numbers so much; source is wikipedia):
1972 33,3
1976 26,9
1980 26,8
1984 29,8
1988 26,9
1992 23,8
1996 23,8
2000 23,9
2004 28,3
2008 30,4
2012 28,1
2016 25,1
Trump seems to be in the same league as Clinton I, Clinton II and Dubbya I. He’s even relatively close to Reagan I. There’s no sign that he is a “bad loser”.
This was a battle of dreadful candidates.
I think this is so extremely arrogant. Hillary must have been one of the most qualified candidates for US president ever. Decades of experience, Senator, Secretary of State, and so on. Who was more qualified than her ever? It’s hard to find a single person.
And why is the VAP voter turnout within the normal average of 50-55% when both candidates are supposed to be the “worst candidates ever” as so many people like to think? It just doesn’t make any sense.
http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout
And why should Bill have been a role model for Hillary as many people like to imply? His VAP turnout is weaker than Hillary’s.
Even just counting *actual* votes:
I was clearly talking about this election and the previous election. You are skipping the previous election. Why would you do that? You do that on purpose. From my point of view you are just biased and being silly.
From one point of view this election was about a third Obama term. Hillary was basically running with this message. Obama even said that he would have won a third term, which is highly doubtful when you observe his decline from 2008 to 2012. I think a third term was being discussed only six times in the history of the US so far, and only one person prevailed eventually: FDR. And most likely only because of the exceptional situation of WWII. So it’s not far-fetched to assume that Obama would NOT have done relevantly better than Hillary.
22. January 2017 at 12:55
Scott:
If I read the article as a unique story as you suggest Scott, it seems a story of a backlash against gentrification in a corner of Wisconsin.
That seems a reasonable scope to give to the author’s findings, but it doesn’t seem the scope the author wanted when he said, “Democrats and progressives thought they lived in one kind of place. It turns out they live in another. That’s true in the nation as a whole, and it’s particularly, poignantly true here. Pepin County at first glance doesn’t seem like much of a microcosm of America—it’s 98 percent white, the overall population hasn’t changed in 120 years, and the unemployment rate this past fall was an infinitesimal 3 percent—but what I found in a week of talking to farmers and small-business owners, longtime residents and transplants, was a startlingly precise reflection of the national rift that animated Trump’s campaign. “Stronger Together” versus “Great Again.” Move-ins versus natives. Urban versus rural. The loss wrought by long-term change here isn’t so much a visible picture of a closed, rusted factory as it is a less measurable communal decline in morale, a slow seep of self-worth, a perceived slippage of relevance in the national conversation.”
22. January 2017 at 13:16
@ssumner
split the “sane” vote, and people like Bush and Rubio stupidly attacked each other while ignoring Trump (until it was too late.)
Let’s say that the “sane” vote was split between Bush and Rubio but then the “insane” vote was split between Cruz and Trump as well. Seems pretty fair to me.
@Negation of Ideology
Trump 45.9 % 49.1 % -3.2 %
Romney 47.2 % 47.6 % -0.4 %
McCain 45.7 % 42.6 % +3.1 %
This looks like a good argument at first glance but I’m not sure how veritable it is. The house vote is influenced by other factors as well. In 2008 for example even Obama did two percent points worse than his Democrats in the House.
22. January 2017 at 15:07
I still don’t see anything unique about Pepin County. I gave the example of Belknap County, New Hampshire. Belknap shifted 12 points toward Trump. Where is Belknap? It’s on the southern shore of Lake Winnipesaukee, and includes Laconia (home of the bike fest). That’s an area where yuppies move in from the cities and buy lake houses. What’s the first thing people do with lake houses? They restrict water access. Then they lobby against snowmobile trails and hunting. Then they want high end wine stores and organic bakeries to replace Irish dives. Then the insult the help when things don’t turn out just so. Belknap could be the same place as Pepin for all I could tell.
I read it a bit the same as BC; a backlash against gentrification. There’s an interesting interchange in the comments section of the Politico article: a woman who lived in Pepin and tried to run an antique store and a community theater, both of which failed. There’s a back and forth between commenters, one accusing the people of Pepin of being uncultured, the other saying they didn’t have the means or practicality to collect antiques and participate in artsy theater.
Which leads to a larger point; what city folk view as “cultural clashes” in fact often starts as socioeconomic disparities. That’s compounded when the newcomers accuse the locals of being uncultured and the locals say what do we need these new people for?
There’s a second point in terms of urban/rural split, where I think it’s a false equivalency to try to argue there are ‘nasty’ people in both groups. The key difference is that country folk know each other, and have to respect each other and be honest operators in order to get along. If country folk treat people badly, word gets around. City folk operate under the cloak of anonymity. You can screw people over (professionally, socially, sexually, etc) and there are always new customers and relationships, w/o accountability. You can also self-promote to escape the anonymity cloak. City people are conditioned to be abrasive because there’s no downside.
It’s true that there are fringe groups that get discriminated against in the country (more so in other parts than WI or NH), but equally often the problem is that people present their differences in an abrasive city way, rather than in a humble country way.
Incidentally, that’s why Bernie would have beaten Trump, at least in the Pepin Counties of the country. There’s an implicit communitarianism in country life even if people are expected to be self-reliant and hard working, and Bernie didn’t have the baggage of talking down to cultural (socioeconomic) underlings the way Hillary did. Would Bernie have won elsewhere? Who knows.
22. January 2017 at 15:32
@Negation of Ideology
-0.3%, sorry. Is there a table that compares all house votes to all presidential elections of the same year? It’s a bit much clicking through all the elections seperately and in different windows.
22. January 2017 at 16:17
I still don’t see anything unique about Pepin County.
…
Belknap could be the same place as Pepin for all I could tell.
I thought this is the point of such articles, isn’t it?
22. January 2017 at 16:31
Scott,
We need to define genius. I think getting elected when lots of smart people thought it was outside of the realm of possibility might be genius (although it might be luck..I’m not sure.)
If Trump is able to successfully enact or regulate a significant portion of his policy goals into effect, then I would consider it genius.
Yes I know you don’t think his policy goals are clear, but you are an outlier on that. If you don’t believe me, do a simple poll of your readers.
1. Does Trump favor reducing illegal immigration?
2. Does Trump favor educational choice?
3. Does Trump favor reducing taxes?
4. Etc.
And I was being serious on my question regarding demagoguery. Rather than name calling, I think it would be much more interesting to discuss what in fact are the unfounded fear, prejudices and beliefs of the electorate.
For example, if I do NOT believe monetary policy is too tight, can I call someone who campaigns for looser monetary policy a demagogue.
I’d get it if you said, Trump was an arrogant bombastic liar, but I’m not sure where the demagogue argument comes from other than to say you disagree with him.
22. January 2017 at 18:31
@ssumner – “Ray, I know this was directed at Harding:
“Why aren’t you in the 1% like I am? ‘Nuff said.”
But I can’t help answering anyway. Perhaps because Harding didn’t inherit lots of money from his daddy, like you did?”
Thanks for the reply but FYI it was my Greek uncle that put me into the millionaires club, last year. And I had to ‘work’ for it, namely find the cash trove hidden in his vast house when he lost his mind (dementia) and had half of it stolen by his domestic helper (long story, I’m surprised I even found the half I did and survived unscathed, as this helper was a rough guy; some Greeks, even in our tony Athens neighborhood, actually lost their lives over similar circumstances). My parents share of my 1% is still ‘intestate’, meaning they could still give it all to charity if they wanted to. The perils of being in the 1%. I have to constantly work for my money, by being nice, as I am. But if my parents found out I mercifully flame you would they disinherit me? Gee I hope not. Really I’m not trying to be nasty on this blog, just thought provoking. OK sorry if I’m nasty sometimes, I’ll try and correct that (mom and dad I hope you’re reading this).
22. January 2017 at 19:54
“This was a battle of dreadful candidates”.
I think this is so extremely arrogant.
It’s not even an opinion. It’s data:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-distaste-for-both-trump-and-clinton-is-record-breaking/
Deal with it.
And why should Bill have been a role model for Hillary as many people like to imply?
Because he could charm the
pants off,er, votes out of anybody? Which is very valuable for a politician? Whereas Stephanapolis and Carville have been quoted as saying that in their focus groups Hillary functioned as vote repellent? BTW, do you see where Bill and Hillary respectively are located on the charts at the link?I can attack your relative numbers as well…
Percentage numbers.
…The only real use of those numbers is to conclude that the VAP turnout…
I didn’t write ‘voting age population’. I wrote ‘eligible voters’. Different thing. More accurate.
http://www.electproject.org/
“Even just counting *actual* votes:”
I was clearly talking about this election and the previous election. You are skipping the previous election. Why would you do that?
Because you were responding to my comment, “Plainly, Hillary and the Democrats lost. Hillary as she failed to get millions of Democrats who voted for Obama to vote for her”, and you were clearly trying to *not* count all the Democrats who voted for Obama but didn’t vote for Hillary. Why would you do that?
By the way, do remember, even counting only *actual* votes as you so prefer, Obama’s 2008 collection of 69,498,516 beats Trump’s 62,980,160 by cool 6.5 million, even though Trump had an electorate that was *18.2 million people larger*. (Feel free to +/- that 18.2 million by 2-4%.)
Hey, your guy won. Be happy.
If you are going to get all agitated about anything that makes it look like he won by anything less than makes him an epoch-changing Napoleonic hero, you should maybe go volunteer to help Spicer push alternative facts about the hugest greatest happiest most festive inauguration crowd ever.
No alternative facts needed here. Old boring ones do fine. As to this conversation, there’s nothing new here so I am over and out, done.
Fare well and hope your guy does too.
23. January 2017 at 03:55
If you are going to get all agitated about anything that makes it look like he won by anything less than makes him an epoch-changing Napoleonic hero
You are the one blinded by agitation and politics here. I’m stating since many months that I totally expected Hillary to win and that Trump’s win was a lucky gutshot in an extremely close election. Nothing Napoleonic about it.
I didn’t write ‘voting age population’. I wrote ‘eligible voters’. Different thing. More accurate.
This doesn’t matter at all. VEP is just VAP minus prisoners and illegals. Whether you take VAP or VEP, it’s true what I said: Trump is in the ballpark of Clinton I, Clinton II and Dubbya I. From the graphs you can see that VEP actually favors new candidates. So with VEP data Trump gets a bit better and might even close the gap to Reagan I.
http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout
It’s not even an opinion. It’s data:
It’s opinion polls that do not explain at all why turnout was in the normal average when both candidates are supposed to be so extremely weak.
you were clearly trying to *not* count all the Democrats who voted for Obama but didn’t vote for Hillary.
I’m sure that there are people who voted two times Obama and then not for Hillary. But what you are doing is just being dishonest again. You are just counting Obama’s record votes in 2008, then you completely skip his results in 2012, and all this just to make Hillary look worse in 2016. And that’s just you being completely dishonest again.
I am over and out, done.
It’s the obvious choice for a character like you to run away since you lost most points of the debate. I totally understand.
23. January 2017 at 08:37
Engineer, You said:
“..but that disintegration of middle and upper middle white society is what it is about”
The reason the American middle class is shrinking is because more and more are moving into the upper middle class. Don’t overdramatize things.
It wasn’t the economy that led Pepin County to go 59-35 for Trump; the economy was even worse in 2012, when they voted to re-elect Obama.
Massimo, You said:
“Also, Sumner has repeatedly promised that Trump will endorse full blanket amnesty on illegal immigrants.”
Congratulations on another win of “dumbest comment of the day”
Steve, I find these arguments that country folk are more virtuous to be both silly and tiresome.
dtoh, You said:
“We need to define genius. I think getting elected when lots of smart people thought it was outside of the realm of possibility might be genius”
Einstein was never elected to anything, so I guess he’s no genius. LeBron James won the NBA title, does that make him a genius? What about an Academy award winner? Is Obama a genius. Bush? I don’t even understand the argument you are making, so how can I respond? Are you really claiming that success in a field makes someone a genius? I thought genius referred to people who were really smart.
23. January 2017 at 15:44
“What the heck is wrong with white people!”
They couldn’t save the country from both Clinton and Trump, so they had to choose the lesser evil.
And Trump won the Republican nomination mostly because people like Bush, Christie and Kasich hung around long after it was clear they could not win, and took potshots at the only candidate (Rubio) who could have stopped Trump. At the New Hampshire debate, Christie helped Rubio destroy himself. But Christie should have dropped out long before, like Walker and Perry did when it became clear they could not win.
Rubio may be able to make a comeback when Trump leaves office, but if Trump is not a candidate Mike Pence will be, and he’ll be very hard for any other Republican to beat.
23. January 2017 at 16:27
Scott,
If someone analyzes a situation or facts and comes up with a solution that no one else thought of, then yes I think that may qualify as genius. As I said, I’m not sure that Trump’s election was a result of a carefully calculated strategy or his just being himself at the right time and place. Yes, I know your opinion on this, but I suspect Trump would have adapted and succeeded even if he had decided to run as a Democrat.
As to the Einstein analogy, saying if A then B does not imply that I think if not A then not B.
23. January 2017 at 19:59
Dan W,
Here is Trump pushing the pro-life agenda:
http://www.vox.com/identities/2017/1/23/14356582/trump-global-gag-rule-abortion
I’ll wait for his pro-gay agenda to come down the pipeline…Lol
24. January 2017 at 08:53
Here is Trump pushing the pro-life agenda
I don’t get the weird GOP ideology regarding this point. Shouldn’t these guys be happy when unwanted children aren’t born in the first place? This leads to less crime, less wars, less mass migration. Shouldn’t they be happy about this? But no, they enforce the births of unwanted children while pulling up their many, many walls at the same time. That’s extremely antisocial. And it doesn’t make any sense.
24. January 2017 at 17:53
Dan W,
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-23/texas-tries-to-revoke-some-gay-marriage-rights
Are you holding your breath waiting for Trump to appoint a pro-gay marriage supreme court justice? LOL!