Why People Voted For Trump – For Those Who Don't Get It

[sts60]

I should add that the first paragraph above is only part snark. While it's in response to things posted by individuals here, it's really not aimed at anyone in particular.

 

[banquetbear]

Is that really the problem?

...absolutely it is.

To me, I would think the problem is that, as Mumbles noted, people are being harassed, abused, beaten, etc. Some people are wiling to ignore that because it isn't likely to happen to them. They think it is because they are fine, upstanding, not so suspicious characters, although a careful view of the evidence suggests that they might be free of such harassment because they are white.

And this is a problem too.

I don't want to go too far down this path of debating whether or not stop and frisk is a good idea, or even whether it is or is not racist. I want to relate it to the OP, and specifically to why calling it racist might end up with people voting for Trump.

I don't think you've been paying attention to what has been happening in the last few years. We now live in a heavily curated world. People only see the news that they choose to see. Donald Trump follows 41 people on Twitter. He doesn't see any news outside of his little comfort zone. I live in my own little personal bubble. So do you. We have all become increasingly insulated from what other people see.

Donald Trump spent his entire campaign attacking people who weren't going to vote for him. Clinton used the word "deplorables" once (and then apologised it) and Trump supporters never ever let her or her supporters forget about it.

So what you are asking people to do is to "not call it as we see it" because some random person somewhere else in the world might take offense. You are suggesting we moderate our tone and censor ourselves because the few hundred thousand people that turned this election might have changed their votes if people stopped calling "Stop and Frisk" racist.

I think that is a load of bollocks. People only hear what they want to hear now. Clinton was on message for the entire campaign and she slipped up once and that was all that Trump supporters needed to hear.

I happen to think stop and frisk was racist. And I'm not going to moderate my opinions so that some random white person on the other side of the world who is going to vote for Trump anyway get slightly less upset.

When there is a problem, people want someone to do something. I love the saying, "We had to do something. This is something." i.e. a lot of "somethings" don't really address the problem, but people demand action even if it is ineffective. Crime is a problem. Maybe it isn't as big of a problem as it was 20 or 30 years ago, but it is a problem. People want something done about it.

Black people in New York wanted something done about crime.

What happens all too often is that any measure intended to fight crime is automatically called racist.

What actually happens is that any measure intended to fight crime that is actually racist is called racist. It isn't an "automatic" process. Show me any measure that has been called "racist" and I will show you why it was called racist.

Why?

Because they are racist.

Because it disproportionately affects black people. That's just reality. The causes for that are rooted in history and are not going to be solved in our lifetime, but the reality is that a disproportionate share of criminals in our society are black.

If you stop disproportionately targeting innocent black people then yes: that is a problem that you can solve in our lifetime.

(Aside: disproportionate share. Not majority, but disprpoportionate share.) Any anti-crime program will necessarily end up targeting black people more than white people. You can't avoid it. As a result, all anti-crime programs end up being called racist.

Anti crime programmes should target criminals, not innocent people. An anti-crime programme that ends up targeting innocent black people more than innocent white people is *********** racist. Because those innocent black people haven't done anything *********** wrong.

Here's where Bill Clinton was a lot smarter than his wife, and why he got elected twice, but she didn't. He didn't play the racist card. He went for tough on crime policies. If Trump were running against Bill, Trump would have lost, because Bill had his "Sister Solja" moment, and that reassured angry white males that he wasn't against them. Hillary really needed one of those moments, but she didn't provide one.

If you haven't seen the 13th: then I suggest you go see that movie now.

But the movie is equally harsh on Bill Clinton, whom DuVernay blames for nearly doubling the prison population with his 1994 Federal Crime Bill, which fast-tracked a generation of black men into prison.

http://www.vulture.com/2016/10/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-ava-duvernay-prison-doc-13th.html

Bill Clinton's policies have been devastating to the black community. But 88% of black men and 94% of black women held their noses and voted Hillary Clinton regardless.

What you are suggesting is that Hillary needed to reassure angry white men by throwing the group of people who overwhelmingly supported her under the bus. I think that your idea is mind-blowingly stupid. And here's the thing. I bet you that even if she did what you suggested she wouldn't have lost any of the black vote. Because the black community knew what was at stake at this election and they voted accordingly. And if she did what you suggest she did I doubt she would have made a dent in the white vote. She may have made some liberals vote Green instead.

You don't compromise your core values to try and win votes. There is nothing wrong with reaching out. But Clinton was never going to convince the "Angry White Voter" that she "wasn't against them." The world doesn't work that way any more. Her campaign made some strategic blunders this election: the leaks and the hacking and widespread "voter suppression efforts" didn't help. But the wrong take away from this election is that we need to pander even more than we already do to white people. More people wanted Hillary than Trump. And come next election more people will vote for Trump's opposition than they will vote for Trump. The key will be playing a better strategic game than Trump next time. Not having a "Sister Souljah" moment.

 

[NoahFence]

As a matter of fact, yes, I have been treated like a 2nd class citizen before. Many times. I've never, to my knowledge, treated anybody else like a 2nd class citizen though.

To your knowledge.

I can positively state that your knowledge in this case is simply incorrect.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I think the OP addresses why mgidm86 voted for Trump rather than why people in general (and people who previously voted for Obama in particular) voted for Trump. Actually, I think mgidm86 summed up his position better four years ago:

I'm voting for my next door neighbor. He'a a total idiot, but I know he'd do at least as well as any of our last half-dozen presidents.

At least he would understand what it is like to have a job and what it means to be a citizen of the US. These guys in office are out of touch with everything except how to line their pockets and get re-elected.

I am voting against Obama. I'm not really voting for anyone, so to speak. As long as people are able to make a life long career out of being a politician, we are always going to have a jackass for president. Nobody deserves any of our votes.

 

[Meadmaker]

Perhaps rural America should spend more time reading and thinking outside our bubbles rather than relying on 16 word straw man summaries that merely confirms our biases.

Perhaps.

Obviously no one is hiring me as a campaign consultant, so my opinion on how to win elections is worth exactly what you are paying for it, unless you count your time. So, maybe it wouldn't do any good to follow my advice.

Also, I don't think a candidate should compromise principles in order to win an election. If a candidate feels strongly that a policy or practice or behavior is racist, and it matters enough to focus on it, by all means he should call it out and stand up for what he believes in.

Nevertheless, I think the focus on racism, sexism, ageism, transphobia, homophobia, IslamoPhobia, didIleaveanyoneoutophobia is excessive. Some things that are called any of those, aren't, and if a candidate wanted to pick up the extra 1% that Hillary needed to push her over the top and into the White House, there are some easy pickings out there. There's a reason that the "Sister Souljah" moment became a significant event in American politics. All Bill Clinton had to do to reassure moderate voters that he was not an extremist was to criticize someone who said it would be a good idea to kill white people. I don't think he had to compromise his principles or pander to racists to do that. I think if his wife had done something comparable, she would be President Elect.

 

[Upchurch]

Nevertheless, I think the focus on racism, sexism, ageism, transphobia, homophobia, IslamoPhobia, didIleaveanyoneoutophobia is excessive.

Racism continues to part of our social structure after 240 years of being a country. What is the proper amount focus that it, or any form of civil rights equality, deserves?

 

[banquetbear]

Also, I don't think a candidate should compromise principles in order to win an election. If a candidate feels strongly that a policy or practice or behavior is racist, and it matters enough to focus on it, by all means he should call it out and stand up for what he believes in.

...well clearly you do. Because you have suggested that the candidate should do things like not call obviously racist things racist.

Nevertheless, I think the focus on racism, sexism, ageism, transphobia, homophobia, IslamoPhobia, didIleaveanyoneoutophobia is excessive.

How exactly? How many times did Hillary talk about these things on the campaign trail? Are these things not important to millions of Americans? What is the correct amount of time she should have devoted to these issues?

Some things that are called any of those, aren't, and if a candidate wanted to pick up the extra 1% that Hillary needed to push her over the top and into the White House, there are some easy pickings out there.

These are "easy pickings" if you compromise your principals and outright lie.

There's a reason that the "Sister Souljah" moment became a significant event in American politics.

It was so significant I had to google it to find out what it was.

""I do not advocate the murdering of anybody," Souljah said in a telephone interview from New York Tuesday. "Not white people. Not black people. That charge is absolutely ridiculous. Mr. Clinton took my comments completely out of context. In the quote he referred to I was speaking in the mindset of a gang member."

""Bill Clinton says that Sister Souljah is a racist like David Duke, a well-known Klan member and white supremacist, but (Clinton) was a member in an all-white segregated club up until this year," she said. "He says that he's not a racist but he tries to distance himself from Jesse Jackson, a leader who has registered more voters and serves the interests of poor blacks, whites, Latinos, labor unions and farmers. I am a drug-free, alcohol-free independent black business woman. I am very well educated and very well traveled. And yet white America has a problem with me."

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-06-17/entertainment/ca-573_1_sister-souljah

So you wanted Hillary to repeat this moment. That says more about you than it does about how she ran her campaign. You wanted Clinton to act like Trump: to attack someone out of context and to use her enormous power and privilege to destroy a private citizen. I think that if she tried to do that: the alt-right would have siezed on that moment and it would have been turned into just another anti-Hillary meme.

All Bill Clinton had to do to reassure moderate voters that he was not an extremist was to criticize someone who said it would be a good idea to kill white people.

Where are these people who think it is a good idea to "kill white people?" If Hillary found a random person on twitter who did think it was a good idea to kill white people and if she had said "random person on twitter: it isn't a good idea to kill white people": how do you think the alt-right media would have portrayed that moment?

My guess: "Crooked Hilary manufactures "Sister Souljah" incident." The message would not have penetrated the "bubble."

Hillary didn't need to convince moderate voters that she wasn't an extremist. Moderate voters knew she wasn't an extremist.

I don't think he had to compromise his principles or pander to racists to do that. I think if his wife had done something comparable, she would be President Elect.

And I think you are wrong. You are vastly underestimating the "bubble" that exists now. If you are on facebook go look at your feed. Go look at your twitter feed. You will see a constant stream of things that you, your family, and your friends agree with. Things you don't agree with are excluded. If you believe in the mainstream media your feed will have lots of references to the mainstream media. But if you believe that mainstream media are corrupt and lying and evil: guess what you are going to be fed? I once made the mistake of watching a few goobergate videos in their entirety to see if the way they were portrayed was the truth. (it was not.) Watching these videos polluted my google home page and my youtube recommended videos for months. ("Do you want to watch this video of a guy saying nasty stuff about feminism for 30 minutes?" No I do not.)

You aren't going to penetrate that bubble with "carefully stage-managed moments". It doesn't work like that any more. The world has changed. There are new rules now. These people were never ever going to flip to Hillary.

 

[Mumbles]

Where are these people who think it is a good idea to "kill white people?" If Hillary found a random person on twitter who did think it was a good idea to kill white people and if she had said "random person on twitter: it isn't a good idea to kill white people": how do you think the alt-right media would have portrayed that moment?

My guess: "Crooked Hilary manufactures "Sister Souljah" incident." The message would not have penetrated the "bubble."

Hillary didn't need to convince moderate voters that she wasn't an extremist. Moderate voters knew she wasn't an extremist..

I suspect that it would be seen by everyone for what it would be - an attempt to pander to bigots. And I'll add another issue - as I said, she was already struggling among many due to her "superpredators" quip from 20 years ago, and from her (and Bill's) behavior in the 2008 primaries. If she had attacked some obscure rapper, she basically would have driven many reluctant supporters away from her.

Bill Clinton had some leeway here - he was following the guy who ran the Willie Horton ad, and Reagan's disastrous (for black Americans) presidency. Hillary had to follow up on 8 years of Obama meeting with activists and reinvigorating civil rights enforcement. And even then, Bill Clinton did relatively badly among black Americans. If Hillary had, say, pushed away Black Lives Matter, *I* would have seen it as a "hold your nose and vote" election, rather than as one candidate who clearly was in my best interests, and one who clearly was openly hostile and racist.

 

[Meadmaker]

You aren't going to penetrate that bubble with "carefully stage-managed moments". It doesn't work like that any more. The world has changed. There are new rules now. These people were never ever going to flip to Hillary.

Hmm....sounds pretty hopeless then. The Democrats cannot win, even against someone like Donald Trump.


I don't know. I prefer a little bit more optimism than that, and, moreover, it fits with my experience. I know people who voted for Trump and some of them seem like reasonable human beings. I think it was possible for Hillary to reach them, and it was her failure that she didn't find that 1% and convince them that she deserved a chance, and to do so without alienating her own voters.

 

[banquetbear]

Hmm....sounds pretty hopeless then. The Democrats cannot win, even against someone like Donald Trump.

...that isn't what I said.

I don't know. I prefer a little bit more optimism than that, and, moreover, it fits with my experience. I know people who voted for Trump and some of them seem like reasonable human beings.

I have no doubt they are reasonable human beings. Many of them are hurting. They feel abandoned. And I actually have a lot of sympathy for them.

But actually have a listen to what these people are saying. They believe the email scandal actually had some importance. They believe that Clinton was more corrupt than Trump. That Trump may have said a few bad things, but Clinton just wasn't someone they could trust.

Over on the Straight Dope Message Boards there is a poster over there who is a well respected Lawyer and a very smart guy and a staunch Republican, who came out quite early in the race to state that he couldn't in good conscious vote for Trump, so was going to vote Clinton. And he was adamant about this right up until election day: when he looked at his ballot papers and just couldn't bring himself to do it. He ticked Trump, and very nearly voted for him but at the last minute voided his paper, asked for a new ballot and voted for Clinton.

Americans are incredibly partisan. If a well-educated lawyer who is well aware of the danger Trump poses to the world struggled to vote against him due to decades of political indoctrination: then what are the odds that a blue-collar worker who works 12 hours a day 6 days a week, who gets their news from the internet are going to be convinced by a cheap political stunt? Why did you fail to convince these people to vote for Clinton instead of Trump?

I think it was possible for Hillary to reach them, and it was her failure that she didn't find that 1% and convince them that she deserved a chance, and to do so without alienating her own voters.

Your idea of "reaching across" was to throw the people who supported her under the bus. Your idea of "reaching across" was for her to abandon her ideals and compromise her principals to manufacture an incident where she could look "tough on her own people." All of your suggestions would have alienated her own voters. In fact the "Sister Souljah" suggestion would have involved her deliberately targeting and alienating her own supporters.

Stop trying to "turn things around" to make it look like I'm saying something I'm not. I've already stated that there was nothing inherently wrong with reaching out. But your idea of "reaching out" by not calling racist things racist and by stopping excessively talking about didIleaveanyoneoutophobia are just plain silly: you can't even be bothered to quantify what "excessive" means, you can't even prove that she talked about these things excessively.

You can be as optimistic as you like: but in the last 12 months Donald Trump steamrolled over the best that the Republican party could throw at him and the best candidate the Democrats could put up. Trump is now the most powerful man in the world, in control of the most powerful army in the world. He has gathered together a team of the worst people in the world to run the most powerful nation in the world. And you are about to find out that your fabled systems of "checks and balances" really only hung together by virtue of the fact that both sides used to play "relatively fair." If there is one thing that Trump won't do is play fair.

And as someone who lives in a country that had absolutely no input into your ridiculous system of electing your President, but now has to live with the consequences of the American people's failure to stop Trump get elected, lets just say that the rest of the world is just a tad pissed off with you guys. Trump didn't happen because Clinton was a little bit "politically correct." You guys need to wake up and figure out exactly how the rules of the game have changed and start playing by the new rules before the next election comes around. If you don't then Trump is going to steamroll over everyone again.

 

[BobTheCoward]

And you are about to find out that your fabled systems of "checks and balances" really only hung together by virtue of the fact that both sides used to play "relatively fair." If there is one thing that Trump won't do is play fair.

I disagree with this description. The US has always been Low on political custom. This is a country that generally teaches Nixon's Saturday night massacre as a Constitutionally legitimate strategy.

 

[Mumbles]

Hmm....sounds pretty hopeless then. The Democrats cannot win, even against someone like Donald Trump.


I don't know. I prefer a little bit more optimism than that, and, moreover, it fits with my experience. I know people who voted for Trump and some of them seem like reasonable human beings. I think it was possible for Hillary to reach them, and it was her failure that she didn't find that 1% and convince them that she deserved a chance, and to do so without alienating her own voters.

I find the fact that you managed to skip directly over the most recent democrat to be elected president to be...questionable. While Obama did disavow black extremists (or people who had been painted as extremists, eg. Wright), he was hardly attacking obscure rappers while meeting with black leaders, or flying to see the execution of a developmentally challenged black guy. And yet, we still had people like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Donald Trump spewing bigotry towards him.

At this point, Beck at least is playing as though he has reformed, but the rest are still ranting about how the darkies want to destroy those good hard-working white folks in small towns. And it was *Trump* who reluctantly disavowed the absolute worst of white nationalists, while still bringing Steve Bannon on board and speaking about (not to, just about) black Americans. And again, Hillary basically had to disavow much of what Bill Clinton had said and done over the years.

This is not the same as 25 years ago. There are far more people who won't stand for garbage like the "Sista Souljah moment" any more. Folks are beyond sick of watching black people get gunned down by trigger-happy cops and racists, only to get have our legal system wrongly back the murderers up. This is exactly why Rev. Barber lead the successful fight against McCory in NC, and why groups like BLM have sprung up. And Trump had been crudely courting the white racist vote for years. The folks that advocated for Trump are the same folks who falsely claim that Obama "hates cops". Even as strategy, it made perfect sense for her to go for the folks who want equality instead.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I find the fact that you managed to skip directly over the most recent democrat to be elected president to be...questionable. While Obama did disavow black extremists (or people who had been painted as extremists, eg. Wright), he was hardly attacking obscure rappers while meeting with black leaders, or flying to see the execution of a developmentally challenged black guy. And yet, we still had people like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Donald Trump spewing bigotry towards him.

At this point, Beck at least is playing as though he has reformed, but the rest are still ranting about how the darkies want to destroy those good hard-working white folks in small towns. And it was *Trump* who reluctantly disavowed the absolute worst of white nationalists, while still bringing Steve Bannon on board and speaking about (not to, just about) black Americans. And again, Hillary basically had to disavow much of what Bill Clinton had said and done over the years.

This is not the same as 25 years ago. There are far more people who won't stand for garbage like the "Sista Souljah moment" any more. Folks are beyond sick of watching black people get gunned down by trigger-happy cops and racists, only to get have our legal system wrongly back the murderers up. This is exactly why Rev. Barber lead the successful fight against McCory in NC, and why groups like BLM have sprung up. And Trump had been crudely courting the white racist vote for years. The folks that advocated for Trump are the same folks who falsely claim that Obama "hates cops". Even as strategy, it made perfect sense for her to go for the folks who want equality instead.

Be honest now, what you're really upset about is the Democrat party agenda has been exposed. Their plot to take power away from any race of Americans should be rejected, not embraced. Doesn't matter which race of people they plot to take power from. This agenda should have been rejected by everyone that is not a racist, however it still seems to be their rallying cry while pointing fingers at others and accusing THEM of being racists........tsk tsk.

If you are not ashamed of the current Democrat agenda, you should be. That's exactly why it failed. When you try to remove power from one race in favor of another, it's wrong. The Democrats may not acknowledge it as racism but that's exactly what it is, and everyone has seen it now. So the cat's out of the bag. Why not represent all Americans without looking at race as the qualifier to do so........
Chris B.

 

[varwoche]

... If you are not ashamed of the current Democrat agenda, you should be. That's exactly why it failed. When you try to remove power from one race in favor of another, it's wrong. The Democrats may not acknowledge it as racism but that's exactly what it is, and everyone has seen it now. So the cat's out of the bag. Why not represent all Americans without looking at race as the qualifier to do so........
Chris B.

For instance?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Why not represent all Americans without looking at race as the qualifier to do so........
Chris B.

The primary reason is race neutral policies are not race neutral.

 

[Meadmaker]

Even as strategy, it made perfect sense for her to go for the folks who want equality instead.

As strategy, whatever it was that she did resulted in the election of Donald Trump. I think a new strategy is in order.

Of course, going back to an earlier comment, if a new strategy would have required her to compromise on principles, then it would be better to stick with principles. Perhaps, like Henry Clay, she would rather be right than president.
Not a lot of people actually know much about Henry Clay, though. They are more likely to know the quote than the speaker.


I think one thing that is happening in America is extreme polarization. I see your commentary as kind of extreme. I don't think Bill Clinton was a racist, or even pandered to racists, but you seem to condemn his actions. (Perhaps I misunderstand, but that's what it seems. I don't want to put words in your mouth. I'm just giving an impression.) However, perhaps Bill Clinton's deliberate courting of the center would be enough today to lose the nomination fight. Hillary seemed to move a bit left to counter a fight against Bernie Sanders. The Republicans are much more extreme in this regard. I think it would have been very difficult for a reasonable Republican to get the nomination this year. I think you have to be a demagogue, if not an outright kook. I find this troubling. I fear that we will face a choice of extremists for a while.

I take some heart in the fact that I don't think any of the candidates nominated in 2008 or 2012 were extremists, so this election might be a fluke. I guess we'll seen in four years.

 

[Meadmaker]

Racism continues to part of our social structure after 240 years of being a country. What is the proper amount focus that it, or any form of civil rights equality, deserves?

I think the key is that if you call something racist, it ought to be something that is racist. Likewise with sexism and all the other identity politics issues.

I am saying that some things condemned as racist, sexist, etc, are not actually racist, sexist, etc.

 

[sunmaster14]

Racism continues to part of our social structure after 240 years of being a country.

Not sure what you mean by "social structure" but racism is certainly a part of society in general. It is a part of all societies, past and present, and it will always be. As long as there are easily identifiable characteristics which correlate positively with certain general cultural and behavioral traits, this will be true.

What is the proper amount focus that it, or any form of civil rights equality, deserves?

Less than what it is being given now in the US. Probably it should be more in other countries (e.g. in Eastern Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Africa).

 

[sunmaster14]

The primary reason is race neutral policies are not race neutral.

Can you elaborate? With examples perhaps?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Can you elaborate? With examples perhaps?

All the disparate impact stuff you hate and already have expressed skepticism about.

The first one off the top of my head is voter ID laws. A lot of evidence seems to be it has a much larger impact on legally eligible minorities.