Subscribe via RSS Feed

Who Uses the ACA? Trump Voters.

[ 216 ] February 6, 2017 |

1in4WA

As this story on Washington demonstrates, one of the many sad ironies of the election is that the counties most reliant upon the ACA for health care are also the counties most likely to vote for the fascist Trump.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Comments (216)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. ArlingtonVaGuy2 says:

    Umm–if this voting pattern makes no sense, maybe you are missing something? But keep calling Trump a fascist and his voters racist–yeah, that’ll work for 2020!

    • TheDeadlyShoe says:

      oh it makes sense its just sadly ironic.

    • Erik Loomis says:

      Am I missing that you are a racist for voting for a fascist?

    • JMP says:

      If Trump voters don’t want to be called racist, then maybe they could have not voted for a white supremacist who made “Vote for me because I’m really racist!” the central message of his campaign. All the time, you see white people whining that it’s so unfair when they get called racist, but if they didn’t do or say anything racist then no one would have ever called them racist. It’s pretty simple, really; don’t be racist and then no one will ever call you racist.

    • rhino says:

      Since Trump is a fascist (or at least a guy who doesn’t mind riding them to power) and his voters are without questionracists, it’s hard to see how honest men could say anything else.

      Now, I know you aren’t an honest man. Hell, you aren’t a man at all, since no real man could vote for Trump, but the least you could do is come up with some better troll than telling us not to point out the vile flaws of vile people.

    • Chetsky says:

      Um, why are you here, honey-bunny? Do you think you’ll impress us with your grade-A wit and scintillating argument? Do you think you’ll piss us off, and that’ll make your sad, sad day (while you try to rub one out, as some put it down-thread)? Really, I’d like to understand.

      B/c y’know, you’re defending a fascist white supremacist Kremlin stooge. And it’s not a good look on you.

      ETA: Oh yeah, and I knOooOoOOOw, you don’t think he’s a fascist/racist/putin-fluffer. And I want a pony. We don’t always get what we want, honey.

    • MAJeff says:

      But keep calling Trump a fascist and his voters racist

      But ya are, Blanche. YA ARE!

    • Lurks says:

      Sadly, I’m going to have to give the point to ArlingtonVaGuy2. He threw out a piece of bait and got a bunch of otherwise sensible people to make his point for him, with at least one commenter effectively calling 46% of the US electorate racists.

      He’s right. That sort of thing will work really well for us in 2020. /sarcasm

      I do hold conservatives to a higher default when it comes to judging them, but I prefer to judge people as individuals and try to avoid blanket statements about entire groups when possible. Saying all Trump voters are racists makes as much sense as saying all Clinton voters are (insert negative trait) because she (did questionable item X). As Malaclypse said, it just wasn’t a dealbreaker for us.

      And it was not even necessary. Erik said “counties most reliant upon the ACA for health care are also the counties most likely to vote for the fascist Trump”. Erik didn’t call all Trump voters racists nor did the linked story. The troll just said he did. You just took the bait.

  2. DamnYankees says:

    I struggle with the what lessons to draw from this sort of stuff. I don’t know what it means in terms of how to understand the intersection of policy and elections.

    On the one hand, you have people on the class-focused liberal side of things saying “look, these voters voted against their own best economic interests, clearly we need to be more aggressive and do things like single payer – neoliberalism half-loaf stuff doesn’t work!”

    On the other hand, you have people on the social-focused liberal side of things saying “look, we gave these people material benefits, and they didn’t care – they voted to hurt their own economic interests in order to retain and re-affirm their sense of social and racial dominance – appealing to economic interests doesn’t work!

    And have very little sense of which of these arguments is correct.

    • Erik Loomis says:

      I think the lesson is primarily that whiteness is a hell of a drug.

      • DamnYankees says:

        Does that make liberals sort of screwed? Seems to me if that’s the answer (and I think it might be) that there’s very little Democrats can do. Because conservatives can unilaterally make an election about whiteness. We can’t stop them. And if the drug is that powerful, I’m incredibly skeptical any economic message – whether it be Bernie’s or Hillary’s or Joe Manchin’s – can do much to break through it.

        • Erik Loomis says:

          You just have to try and craft a message that appeals to lots of people. After all, most of these counties always voted heavily for Republicans. Some (Grays Harbor most notably) did switch far to the right this election, but it’s not as if it’s inevitable. And you don’t have to win all the voters. Just some of them.

          • DamnYankees says:

            Craft a message? Or craft a policy?

            I find myself more and more sympathetic to the (pessimistic) view that if conservatives are going to appeal to white voters by appealing to their cultural grievances and explicit whiteness, no message can counter that. Policy can counter it, but it would be policy at the expense of the non-white members of the coalition.

            There are certainly times when these voters will be willing to overlook the “whiteness drug” (as you call it), but it seems to me those situations are almost always exogenous – you need the GOP to completely fuck up, like in Iraq or Katrina or the Great Recession. You need reality to slap people in the face. It’s not something Democrats can do with a PR firm.

            It’s not a happy state of affairs. I hope I’m wrong.

            • brewmn says:

              This is where I’m at. No amount of message crafting or beneficial policy-offering is going to get these people’s votes as long as that message or that policy is infected by Democrat cooties.

            • Solar System Wolf says:

              This is where I’m at, too. Which means the most important thing Democrats can do for their coalition is fight like hell against gerrymandering and voter suppression.

            • twbb says:

              We just had 8 years of a black president who got those votes, quite handily. I’m not sure where the despair is coming from.

              • lunaticllama says:

                For the presidency, we just need to win more votes in this area. It doesn’t have to be a majority. We just need to make the margins closer.

              • Rob in CT says:

                The composition of congress & state governments.

                HRC, had she won, would’ve been hamstrung by a GOP House (possibly the Senate too, in which case she’d have been a lame duck from day 1).

        • alexceres says:

          I don’t think that works as well the second time around. Rethuglicans have spent decades on dog whistles and subtle messaging because they know their policies are extremely unpopular. Trump went and took the quiet parts loud. Many if not most of the marginal independent voters didn’t believe
          (1) there was much difference between the neoliberal business parties
          (2) that rethuglicans were evil enough to strip away their health care despite promising to do so for eight years. Hilary tested ads on the aca repeal and people just didn’t believe Trump and Ryan would do that to them.

          Well Trump is committed to showing those voters how wrong they were.

          Liberals won the last election by 3M votes. Even with the electoral college, it was a very tight race. Liberals aren’t screwed. And we don’t need trump loyalist votes. We need 100,000 more votes in the rust belt. That’s it.

          Run ads showing how trump broke his promise to bring back jobs (easy, since it’s impossible to keep) and that he stole their health care left them to die in the street for billionaires tax cuts. 100K votes in the rust belt is well within grasp. Notice how trump is trying to slow roll the aca repeal this week until after 2018 elections.

          The GOP policies are so toxic they can’t help but destroy the party politically unless they tap dance some masterful redirection of blame on minorities, foreigners, and domestic liberal enemies. Which they may yet pull off, but the more trump gets tangled up in inept and unpopular protests and wastes his political capital on highly controversial issues, the less likely the blame shifting will pan out.

        • Phil Perspective says:

          Why is it so hard to follow Atrios’s suggestion? You know, KISS. As much as Loomis hates Stoller, maybe he should listen when Stoller and his ilk talk about the submerged state and how it hurts Democratic politicians. This:

          http://democracyjournal.org/arguments/keep-it-simple-and-take-credit/

          pretty much sums it up.

          • Mayur says:

            The part that piece ignores is “how do you get this shit passed over the confirmed and well-funded opposition who view public benefits as the work of the Devil and will only accept something that helps people if it’s packaged in “market-driven” nonsense. We did have a much more straightforward health insurance reform plan before Holy Joe, Ben Nelson, and St. Susan got their hands on it.

          • Rob in CT says:

            It’s hard because we’d need supermajorities to pass it.

            It’s not that I think that approach is wrong. I think it’s very likely that a universal program that isn’t means-tested and is directly administered by the government is superior both substantively and politically to a rube-Goldberg approximation of same. But you need the votes for it. FDR had mega majorities for the New Deal, and even then there were some unsavory compromises made. I think LBJ had some impressive majorities too that resulted in Medicare & Medicaid (neither of which is actually universal, I might add).

            • so-in-so says:

              The message may really be more important than the policy. I don’t mean to short change the policy, it should be real and something that would work if implemented. It probably doesn’t have to include plans to be implemented in the face of a hostile congress, part of the message could well be “these are the things we can do for you if you give us the white house and congressional majorities”. That isn’t a lie, and if the message is strong enough it may motivate people. It also can’t be “look at all the great policies on our web site”, because that really isn’t a “message”.

      • ArlingtonVaGuy2 says:

        And you view yourself as virtuous as having transcended your whiteness, therefore justified to shit on white Washington voters, while keeping quiet about defects in other ethnic voting blocs?

      • MPAVictoria says:

        I think the arguments outlined here are very persuasive:

        http://democracyjournal.org/arguments/keep-it-simple-and-take-credit/

        • Aaron Morrow says:

          What Mayur said:

          The part that piece ignores is “how do you get this shit passed over the confirmed and well-funded opposition who view public benefits as the work of the Devil and will only accept something that helps people if it’s packaged in “market-driven” nonsense. We did have a much more straightforward health insurance reform plan before Holy Joe, Ben Nelson, and St. Susan got their hands on it.

          My own two cents is that I don’t see how those arguments would persuade Roberts to keep the Medicaid expansion national, let alone changing votes in the Senate.

    • Dennis Orphen says:

      A very small minority of people have conditioned many people to vote and act against their own best interests in the favor of the best interests of the aforementioned small minority. Those who can resist the conditioning start to have an overall competitive advantage over those who cant or won’t ( and the willful won’t is a big factor here). They all eventually end up in the blue counties. I’ll take Ravenna, Queen Anne or Magnolia over almost anything else outside of King County in WA, although I cannot even afford Burien, nor would I want to pay for it even if I could.

    • Ithaqua says:

      Yes, this could well be a classic example of the Ecological Fallacy, manifested as Simpson’s Paradox. One could hypothesize that lots of people getting ACA coverage made their (bitter, …) neighbors angry(ier), so the neighbors went out in droves to the polls to vote away their ACA, but the ACA-ites, not realizing what was going to happen, didn’t match their “enthusiasm”, with the consequences as described.

      • Breadbaker says:

        One could, but the numbers don’t support it. Most of these counties have very small populations. And they went for Trump overwhelmingly. They’re also places where everyone votes, the kind with stable populations and remember there are state legislative races going on at the same time that mean a lot to these people (while Washington got zero attention in the Presidential races and with two exceptions all the statewide races were close to uncontested wins for Democrats, the state senate was very much in contention and won narrowly by the GOP), plus there were ballot initiatives as well.

        If 50% of the people in Adams County participate in the exchange and 67% of the voters in Adams County voted for Trump (just over 3000 people), there is literally no way in hell that a large percentage of those people are not the same people.

  3. JDM says:

    But those people only voted to get rid of ObamaCare, not the ACA.

    • GeorgeBurnsWasRight says:

      Yep. And they’re likely never to figure out what happened and why.

    • Asteroid_Strike_Brexit says:

      I seriously wonder if that belief accounted for large numbers of Trump voters.

      • Domino says:

        Nah, only a handful of people are left who don’t know the ACA and Obamacare are the same thing. What we see (from Vox) is that people honestly believed that Republicans would provide a better alternative to the ACA. You know, a magic plan that lowers premiums AND deductions. While also expanding coverage. And really forcing those people to not mooch off the system.

        I get the legit critics of the ACA – but I honestly don’t understand why anyone would believe Republicans would give them something better. Then again, when people are unhappy with the current officeholders, they vote for the party in the minority. So, I can also see that.

  4. marcel proust says:

    It may be the same counties, but is it the same people? I would imagine that voting rates of those on Medicaid or otherwise reliant on the ACA are lower than others’.

    In addition, one of the points that Hillbilly Elegy made (as well as other work in a similar vein) is that people who feel they are hardworking and upstanding are pissed off by other people who they think are taking advantage of handouts and are unwilling to live and suffer the way they do: especially when “those people” are nearby and make them feel like suckers. If they vote at higher rates than “those people”…

    • Hercules Mulligan says:

      Hillbilly Elegy is the Charles Murray of Appalachia. “All problems are due to your own decadent culture of dependency…”

    • DamnYankees says:

      I was actually talking to a family member about this exact point just yesterday, since he was in the middle of reading this.

      It’s just so hard to know what to do about that sort of attitude, since it seems utterly unmoored from policy. Not that policy can’t have these effects – it can, of course. But I don’t seem much evidence of any relationship between “do policies have these effects” and “do people resent policies because they have those effects”.

      One of the interesting points I heard made during the election season (I think it was on The Weeds, but I’m not 100% sure) was that conservatives had these sorts of complaints about welfare all the time in the 70s and 80s. Reagan’s Welfare Queens and all that. So we reformed welfare. Did reforming welfare reduce conservative antagonism towards it at all? No. Did it convince people that these sort of moral hazards were no longer as big a problem? No. There was no relationship at all, as far as I could see.

      There are people who will always hate the fact that poor people get help. Period. I don’t know what the positive lesson here is, but I think one of the lessons I’ve learned is that liberals should never try to craft legislation or policy to try to address conservative resentments. It just doesn’t work. Do the policy you think will work. Period.

      • sigaba says:

        Government can increase literacy, it can reduce rates of disease and it can substantively affect aggregate poverty rates, but I don’t think it can’t make anybody feel like the world is any more or less fair than it was yesterday.

        This cuts both ways, you can’t make a program that improves the perception of fairness, and you can’t eliminate a program, thus improving the perception of fairness. If people are concerned about fraud, you can address that; if they think all the welfare money is going to buy meth, you can address that. If you’re gripped by the general unease and suspicion of your neighbors that is so the essence of small town life, cutting food stamps ain’t gonna fix that.

        Anyways, “Economic Anxiety.” Or maybe just “anxiety,” with economic consequences.

        • phrenological says:

          Government can increase literacy, it can reduce rates of disease and it can substantively affect aggregate poverty rates, but I don’t think it can’t make anybody feel like the world is any more or less fair than it was yesterday.

          I think my wife would disagree with that the world is less fair to women with Trump in our government.

        • Solar System Wolf says:

          Actually, as someone who’s worked in poverty law, I don’t even think you can do those things. Point out to people that food stamp fraud has been studied exhaustively and the rate is only about 4% (costing more money to study and remedy than we lose from the fraud itself), and they just say, “Oh, that’s just what the government wants you to think.” Tell them the welfare money isn’t going to buy meth, and they say, “I just know it is.” Tell them that undocumented immigrants aren’t eligible for most benefits, and they say, “They just lie to get them.” Point out that eligibility workers are trained to ask for proper documentation and they say, “The eligibility workers are in on the fraud.” It never ends.

          Oh, and I should add when they need benefits, they say, “I’m not a liar like those people. I worked hard all my life and I deserve this.”

          • sigaba says:

            I said you could address those things, I didn’t say you could fix the perception.

            Do you think people actually believe this, or this bundle of assumptions isn’t just a proxy for a more general belief? Are they really worried about fraud or is the opinion just a kind of signaling?

            • Solar System Wolf says:

              I think it’s a kind of signaling. Someone here posted links the other day to a psychological discussion about “defensive fetishes” that I found fascinating. The preoccupation with fraud is a way of appearing to be virtuously concerned about a value-neutral problem, while really expressing a socially disfavored hatred of others.

              If these people were really concerned about fraud, then hearing about the relative scarcity of fraud and the punishment of it when it’s found (every large district attorney’s office has a whole unit devoted to prosecuting welfare fraud) would put them at ease. But it never does. The facts just bounce right off, which makes me think the entire conversation is really about something else.

              • so-in-so says:

                Also they don’t just naturally think this way, they are carefully trained by the GOP and Fox, etc.

                • efgoldman says:

                  Also they don’t just naturally think this way

                  I dunno’. My late father in law and late brother in law were spewing that shit long before Rupert ever started a TV network.
                  Fox and the rest of them didn’t pull this crap out of thin air.

                • JonH says:

                  “My late father in law and late brother in law were spewing that shit long before Rupert ever started a TV network.”

                  I’m sure newspaper columnists probably filled that niche. Similar to how the UK papers ran lots of anti-EU nonsense for years, much of which was false or misleading.

              • so-in-so says:

                Also they don’t just naturally think this way, they are carefully trained by the GOP and Fox, etc.

            • efgoldman says:

              Do you think people actually believe this, or this bundle of assumptions isn’t just a proxy for a more general belief? Are they really worried about fraud or is the opinion just a kind of signaling?

              I don’t think it matters much. The result, in the voting booth and around the regulars’ table in the saloon, is the same.

          • Domino says:

            This whole comment made me think of the CNN panel with Republicans voters after the election, and the conviction from one woman that California allows (and encourages!) undocumented immigrants to vote. Just knew it. And even when pressed on how many fraudulent votes were submitted in California, she dodges that by stating “I believe voter fraud happened”.

            You see this with Trump’s tweets – if millions of illegitimate votes were cast, we’d need numerous investigations immediately, along with massive recount. But of course, Trump “knew” every single one of those 5 million fraudulent votes were for Hillary Clinton.

            It is progress that people are no longer comfortable stating out loud “wetbacks and hoodrats cheat”. But the sentiment remains.

      • Gizmo says:

        THIS.

        The contemporary republican party will not be happy with whatever they get. They will argue their case in bad faith, and they will not take yes for an answer. The tea partiers were just the most dickish version of that in the recent times.

        There is no point reaching out to these people in terms of trying to appease them with policy. We just have to do the right thing and make the case forcefully as to why its the right thing.

        We need social security to be fully funded because nobody should have to move in with their children. People who work hard all their lives deserve a decent retirement. Teenagers shouldn’t have to compete with retirees for jobs.

        We have a social safety net so that when your neighbor loses their job your corner grocer doesn’t go out of business. Bad things happen to everybody.

        Medicare is important because no company is going to sell affordable health insurance to 65-year olds.

        Workplace safety laws matter. People get hurt and die all too often because their boss is too cheap to pay for a safe workplace. Thats a national embarrassment.

        Environmental laws matter. Clean air and clean water affect your quality of life. Clean air means less asthma. We have learned the hard way over and over again that polluters won’t clean up their messes on their own

        You don’t have to be a genius to see that the summers are getting hotter, the glaciers are disappearing, and the oceans are rising. All that pollution is screwing up the climate and we have to do something about it

        Lowering taxes on your boss doesn’t mean that you’re going to get a raise or that somebody is going to get a job. Every time we cut a millionaire’s taxes that means less money to pay for a school or a road and more money that will come out of your pocket.

        We’re all in this together.

    • BobBobNewhartNewhartSpecial says:

      It may be the same counties, but is it the same people?

      I was just thinking the same thing. The majority of the ACA people could be among those in the county that didn’t vote or voted against Trump. Without that data, it could just as easily be the case that the Trump voters in theses counties are getting exactly what they want – an end to a program that they don’t use or like.

      • Keeperman says:

        Isn’t this especially likely to be true, since the typical Trump voter was actually solidly middle-class, whereas those who benefit most from the ACA are lower on the income scale, who, as a group, went for Hillary?

        • Breadbaker says:

          If you look at the numbers of voters in the counties, the Trump percentage, the turnout and the number in the exchanges, it’s pretty close to impossible for the numbers to work. These are generally low population rural counties. You can’t have 35% vote for Hillary and 45% in the exchanges and those be the same people or the same plus non-voters. And the damning consistency between the high exchange counties and the Trump voting counties, in a state where there was exactly zero attention from the national campaigns and not a soul thought Trump would take Washington, which was one of his worst states, is hard to explain.

    • Fortunado says:

      You are correct and I came to the comments specifically to make the same point. It’s not the bottom tier people that rely on handouts that are the ones voting for Trump. Those people don’t vote, full stop.

      Its the next quintile up. They view the bottom one 20% with contempt and go to great lengths to signal they are not one of “them”.

  5. Mike G says:

    They’ll die sicker and sooner, but their egos well-fed by a sense of superiority in their whiteness, cheering on the bully who mirrors their anger and selfishness. Sometimes you just can’t fix stupid.

  6. ArlingtonVaGuy2 says:

    Policy is downstream of culture, which is downstream of race. It’s not just American whites–no ethnic group wants to vote for being turned into a minority–esp while ‘elites’ crow about it–Trump should have been foreseeable, and what comes next is way way worse

    • (((Malaclypse))) says:

      no ethnic group wants to vote for being turned into a minority

      You must have interesting ballots. That, or you are really obsessed with race.

      • Steve LaBonne says:

        Folks in California seem to have gotten over it.

        • Lost Left Coaster says:

          This has been under-discussed in the media. California gets very little political attention on the national scene these days, it seems, since it is regarded as a dependable, solid blue state, but this is the result of a remarkable transformation in just a few decades.

          • PhoenixRising says:

            Nothing that has happened in the past 3 weeks was not predicted by the early 1990s in the Bay Area. Sampling of banners/stickers (children, before we had the Tweet machine, we had to get neon-colored stickers printed if we wanted to communicate 140 characters to hundreds of commuters):

            We Don’t Want Your Pete
            We Want Our Rights

            Immigrants Belong
            Defy 187

            Pete Wilson, while a competent GOP technocrat of his time, made a strategic error that Trump is recapitulating at the national level: Government cannot make its mission to assault all vulnerable groups with state power…even if those assaults poll well with a majority taken one at a time.

            But it’s the dose that makes the poison and Trump’s hostile takeover of the GOP is going to destroy the party and damage the country (not sure about the relative timing and levels of either).

            • sigaba says:

              I spent 2016 predicting that the Republicans were recapitulating Prop 187, I consider myself chastened. You go ahead though. :)

              • PhoenixRising says:

                Prop 187 won.

                • one of the blue says:

                  Yes. And it took 16 years for the reaction to Prop 187 to work its way through the body politic. And in a lot of the country we’re starting further behind.

                • sigaba says:

                  That is true. I wasn’t here when it happened, so I have trouble comparing the dynamic, I’m sure it seemed like a settled deal at the time.

                  I must add, however, that Pete Wilson didn’t have the largest military in the history of the Earth at his disposal, nor could he count on ISIS to consolidate his power base for him.

    • sigaba says:

      why are you libs always crowing about "race" and "minorities?" why can't we just have a calm conversation about the decline in ethnic european breeding stock and passive white genocide? you libs aren't rational.

      • UncleEbeneezer says:

        Damn it you beat me to White Genocide!!1!

      • Little Chak says:

        Can't you understand that I'm really just trying to open your eyes to the undeniable fact that you need to embrace racist policies that will reverse demographic trends that racist white people find threatening? I'm not at all just freaking out because my beloved white supremacist leader's platform of open racial hatred and targeted, blanket discrimination doesn't actually sit well with most Americans, who it turns out are more decent than my God Emperor and I anticipated, as evidenced by his approval ratings nosediving, and thus lashing out with a vague threat that all of this is just a bad dream and my fellow "forgotten" voters really are going to rise up and slay you disgusting liberals who think that you can treat Muslims like they are fellow human beings and not a unified force of evil, and who are losers because they believe in some form of pluralistic democracy in which the party in power respects both the rule of law and the concept of a legitimate opposition party.

        Did I get that about right?

        No, we aren’t going to embrace targeted, blanket discrimination against Muslims.

        No, we aren’t going to embrace a wall on the Mexican border, or the deportation of Dreamers, or the demonization of foreigners that could lead to an assault on birthright citizenship.

        Yes, ArlingtonVaGuy2, we are going to be honest about what those ideas represent, and attack them for what they are.

        No one who holds those views, especially those who turned to them out of fear, are irredeemable deplorables. But the ideas themselves? They absolutely are. And we will always do what we feel is right, and that is to stand up to them with every ounce of energy that we can. Because we still believe in the promise of America.

    • Chetsky says:

      Ahahahahahaha!

      It’s not just American whites–no ethnic group wants to vote for being turned into a minority

      [Wipes tears of laughter from eyes] Honey, -only- American whites are being turned into a minority (and that, over coming *decades*). All the others -are- minorities, and will remain so.

  7. C.V. Danes says:

    one of the many sad ironies karmic retributions of the election is that the counties most reliant upon the ACA for health care are also the counties most likely to vote for the fascist Trump.

    Fixed it for you.

    • ap77 says:

      Seriously.

      Look, I fully support and would vote for policies that help people, even despicable Trump voters. I obviously do not want the ACA repealed and will do what I can to help prevent that.

      But if it happens anyway because of what these Trump people have voted for? Well, then fuck them. I will laugh and laugh when they lose their healthcare because of ACA repeal. Enjoy your preventable diseases and so on!

      I guess that makes me a bad person, but oh well.

    • Hercules Mulligan says:

      Hmm, no, this doesn’t look like a fix at all. Weird. Did you mean to type something else?

      WHAT IF: we didn’t say condescending to the heartland is Why Trump Won(tm) but ALSO we didn’t say that poor people who are about to lose medical care and be poisoned by contaminated water deserve it?

      • I’m not going to say anyone flat-out deserves to lose health insurance, but if the ACA gets repealed and we start having to give charitable donations to people to help with their medical bills, our first priority shouldn’t be Kim Jong Orange voters.

        • Hercules Mulligan says:

          And how do you propose to identify them? By state? County?

          Trump won 68% of the vote in West Virginia. Turnout in that state was 57%, for ~39% affirmatively pro-Trump. So will nonvoters suffer, too, or are we going to target people who cast ballots for the guy? And what about their families? Will their kids starve and lose medical coverage because their parents voted for the fascist white supremacist?

          I know the idea of a national charity where we have to pick and choose who gets care is an absurd hypothetical, I’d just like it known that even in that scenario, the basic principle breaks down very, very quickly.

          • There’s no way of doing so for certain, of course. However, if someone admits to voting for Cheeto Benito, they’re certainly not going to be my first priority for charity.

            And of course it sucks that family members who didn’t vote for the shitgibbon will suffer. This is one of many reasons why any system of health care that doesn’t cover everyone is utterly monstrous. But there are Clinton voters with kids who are going to lose health insurance if the ACA gets repealed as well. If I have limited resources, and can choose between giving those resources to someone I know was a short-fingered vulgarian voter or to someone I know was a Clinton voter, I’m going to choose the Clinton voter.

          • Ithaqua says:

            Seems rather non-hypothetical to me, given that that’s exactly how the Trump voters apparently viewed the ACA – as government-mandated charity at their expense – and they voted not to give care to the less fortunate who relied on the ACA for coverage.

            • Hercules Mulligan says:

              I’d like to think that my commitment to a decent standard of living for everyone is indeed universal, and that if for some reason I were to be the one dispensing funds to needy families, I would make donations according to need, not voting patterns of their counties.

              I’m sure that it’s not true, and that I, like you two, would invariably let politics influence my decisions. But you better believe I would be goddamn ashamed of myself if that happened.

              • Ithaqua says:

                The point I was trying to make was intended to be specific to your last paragraph, and I don’t believe that “well they did it first!” would be any justification for withholding limited ACA funds from Trump voters – nor, when it comes right down to it, do I think any of the rest of the LGM commentariat think so. But if it happens that Trump voters, intending to screw others in various ways, find themselves hoist on their own petard, a certain amount of schadenfreude is to be expected.

                • ap77 says:

                  Very eloquently put.

                • Hercules Mulligan says:

                  I do understand it. I’m sorry. I don’t mean to be sanctimonious; I’m just cranky today, for unrelated, nonpolitical reasons.

                  But I, for one, don’t feel that schadenfreude. I just feel sad.

          • ArlingtonVaGuy2 says:

            What you’re missing is that white idedenity does not equal white supremacy/Nazism. Crowing over the “browning of America” has created a white voting bloc. Lotta change coming. Trump is just the start. Own it.

            • sigaba says:

              I’m white. Summarize briefly what political interest I should have in white identity.

              • N__B says:

                You get a newsletter, a lapel pin, a decal for your rear window, and a set of ginsu scotch-irish knives.

                • sigaba says:

                  Third prize is youre fired. All I really need are those fucking Glengarry leads.

                • efgoldman says:

                  You get a newsletter, a lapel pin, a decal for your rear window, and a set of ginsu scotch-irish knives.

                  Also a good quality white percale sheet with professionally cut eye holes.

            • Steve LaBonne says:

              “White” is a completely phony category whose content has changed constantly over the years and whose only purpose has always been the exclusion of those defined as nonwhite at any given time. I am mostly of Irish descent, partly French and French-Canadian- those things are real and matter to me. Being “white” does not.

              • sigaba says:

                “Black” is a phoney category too, we can’t discount the political movements and cultural attachments people have to being labeled black. If we’re calling some people “black” and then discriminating against them on that basis, “black” people are totally in the right to organize along those lines, practice solidarity as “blacks” etc.

                Black people had and still do have an interest in organizing as blacks, as long as there’s still discrimination. So that’s why the question is, “What is my political interest in the white race?” What do I get from it? What do whites get from it? The answer is usually disgusting.

                Anti-black racism is a tragedy, anti-white racism is the concomitant farce. Blacks fought for the right to vote; whites fight for the right to post on Twitter without criticism.

                The “white” category is even more ridiculous than the black one; it was essentially invented in the 50s as a sort of culture jamming of the Black Power movement. A white is, by definition, that which is not The Black. And everybody knows what black is.

                ArligntonGuy, you’re a joke.

          • efgoldman says:

            So will nonvoters suffer, too, or are we going to target people who cast ballots for the guy?

            Not voting is also a choice. Unless you want to say ~40% of the country has no agency.

            • so-in-so says:

              Children, those disenfranchised by the GOP…

              I think Erik said in earlier threads that we really need to do the best we can for everyone. Yes, there is clearly a sense of karma in action when someone cries “I voted for him, but I didn’t think he’d take away MY insurance!” but those clear-cut cases will be pretty rare. If there is a backlash, suddenly nobody will have voted for him.

          • ap77 says:

            Like I said – I don’t want it to happen. And it’s awful that a lot of innocent people will be royally fucked over by this.

            But as for the Trump voters themselves . . . I honestly have a hard time imagining bad things that I wouldn’t want them to suffer. They are my enemy from this day until my last day.

          • JonH says:

            It’ll be easy to tell.

            If someone asks for help because of Trumpcare, you say to them “Damn, all those horrible racist Trump voters didn’t care who they hurt, huh?”

            Chances are pretty good that the person will respond, “Now, wait a minute, I voted for Trump and I’m no racist.”

            And then you know that they’re a Trump voter.

  8. Harry Hardrada says:

    Related: counties that are the most reliant on foreign-trained doctors were also more likely to vote for Trump (and said doctors are in fields where there’s something of a shortage).

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-immigration-order-could-make-it-harder-to-find-a-psychiatrist-or-pediatrician/

    edit: also the color scheme in the chart in the OP is… well, it’s bad.

  9. Crusty says:

    Is it ok to come out and say that the problem with the country is that there are too many stupid people yet?

  10. PhoenixRising says:

    ACA mandates coverage of mental and behavioral health treatment. Opiate-addicted white people and their families, who only stand to benefit from such treatment being covered by insurance and therefore existing at all, voted for the straight-talking creamsicle of rage because he told them he’d let cops get tough on crime and drugs.

    Because they’re ignorant, uneducated and hostile crabs who aren’t happy unless they are trying to pull the rest of us back into their barrel.

    Turn out Democrats and we can get back to making them take their medicine against their own wishes because it’s good for them.

  11. bobbyp says:

    The 48th Soviet of Washington marches on resolutely into the future. Also might note that those high numbers correlate with lower incomes, although I don’t quite know how any lower income folks live in the outer San Juans.

    We don’t have to change their minds. We need to proudly promote our policies to all, ask all to join us, and build on the coalition we have.

  12. anonymous says:

    The way to appeal to Whites is simple. You need to directly appeal to them just like any other racial or ethnic group. For Democrats, it means putting minority identity politics in the background so that it is no longer seen as the Party of Non-Whites. And it means addressing and appealing to the needs of White people explicitly just like it is done for Blacks, Hispanics and other PoC.

    A candidate needs to go into places like Macomb County MI and other bastions of the WWC and explicitly appeal to their White identity and sense of fear of being marginalized into minority status. At the same time, you do this without appealing to White Supremacy. The nightmare of many Whites is that the entire country is going to become like California and as long as the Repugs are seen as the “White Party”, they will vote Repug regardless of how bad their policies are.

    • efgoldman says:

      The nightmare of many Whites is that the entire country is going to become like California and as long as the Repugs are seen as the “White Party”, they will vote Repug regardless of how bad their policies are.

      One wonders how they’ll react in two years if Dems point out that those coal mines and steel mills haven’t reopened, and aren’t gonna’.

    • ap77 says:

      Yes, what a nightmarmish, dystopian hellhole California is.

    • Vance Maverick says:

      I don’t believe what you’re proposing is actually simple. Figuring out how to say “we’re the party of white people” to one group but not another is a nontrivial rhetorical challenge, even if it’s desirable. Some will continue to hear “the party of everyone” as “the party of nonwhites”, and we probably can’t reach them.

      Of course, your use of the phrase “identity politics” suggests a certain…lack of good faith.

      • UncleEbeneezer says:

        Figuring out how to say “we’re the party of white people” to one group but not another is a nontrivial rhetorical challenge, even if it’s desirable. Some will continue to hear “the party of everyone” as “the party of nonwhites”, and we probably can’t reach them.

        Right. The great, steaming pile of irony is that “Black Lives Matter” translates effectively into All Lives (Should/Must) Matter, and the people responding “No, All Lives Matter” are actually saying that only White lives do/should matter. Inclusivity is a wonderful thing and the way forward for the Dem Party, but as you say, there will always be those who see it as a bad thing.

    • Murc says:

      And it means addressing and appealing to the needs of White people explicitly just like it is done for Blacks, Hispanics and other PoC.

      What are these needs? Be very, very specific. Because needs are internally, not externally, defined, and it sure seems like a hell of a lot of whites have defined what they need as “put the boot into them brown people.”

    • imwithher says:

      Seems like a pretty fine threading job you got lined up for us. White people, including WWC people in Macomb Cy, don’t actually have the same or even similar “needs” to those that POC have. Being part of the established, privileged majority, even if it is not that far off from being the mere plurality (not minority, actually) group doesn’t generate a lot of needs. Of course these folks have “needs,” but their needs don’t come from being white or from racial or ethnic discrimination. So, how do we “address” them as white people without pandering to white supremacy?

      Listen to yourself. The “nightmare” is that they will have to live in something akin to one of the most dynamic, prosperous, cool, trendsetting, high tech States in the Union. And that is a nightmare merely because there are lots of non white people there. That is beyond white suprematism, actually, and is close to eliminationism. What should we be proposing? Bounties for white babies? Mass deportations? End of birthright citizenship? Or straight up ethnic cleansing?

      Beyond the gross immorality of all this, it is practically and politically stupid too. Trump and the GOP own the white racist vote. We can’t get it now, even if we wanted it. And if we did try to get it, we would be alienating the POC vote which is our most loyal bloc.

      So. Please. Can y’all just STFU?

      • Murc says:

        Being part of the established, privileged majority, even if it is not that far off from being the mere plurality (not minority, actually) group doesn’t generate a lot of needs.

        Well, I mean. That isn’t true. There are tons of white folks who have real, genuine needs that ought to be addressed by both politics and policy. I freely admit, as a white dude, that I don’t know if I would be a member of the Democratic coalition if it weren’t pushing policy that addressed my needs.

        But white folks don’t really have needs that are tied specifically to our whiteness. What I need is a good job, good healthcare, a secure retirement, and a just society for myself and those who come after me. But those needs are sort of universal; everyone has them, no? I don’t have a need for the cops to stop murdering people who look like me in the streets or for invidious, systemic racism to lift its boot off my neck. Those are needs that only oppressed classes can have.

      • UncleEbeneezer says:

        So, how do we “address” them as white people without pandering to white supremacy?

        There’s your answer. Anonymous wants us to pander to White Supremacy. The fact that we will never be able to take the WS Party hat away from the GOP, or that trying to do so would lose our entire base seems not to compute for them.

    • alexceres says:

      Wow, it’d be terrible if the whole country became as rich as California.

      Funny story, my CA taxes are going to pay off the federal benefits to the red states, who get more in benefits than they pay. Well, not funny ha ha funny, more ironic that all the racists suck at the teet of blue state GDP while bemoaning who everyone else is a 47% moocher.

    • Rob in CT says:

      I just want to point out that this:

      At the same time, you do this without appealing to White Supremacy.

      and this:

      The nightmare of many Whites is that the entire country is going to become like California

      Are in direct conflict.

  13. jpgray says:

    If we can all stop high-fiving each other over “LOL white people,” can we recognize that, in these areas, the Trump-stuffed ballot box is on par with the meth-blacked smile in the self-harming desperation it represents?

    Greedily accepting years of wretchedness for a few moments of feeling grand and superior is not something that happy and secure people do.

    It’s unrealistic in the extreme to imagine the rural uneducated working man tropes of the 80s, let alone the 50s, will return, but this is what generations were raised upon, and can we honestly say we’ve replaced those tropes with anything that could inspire the same level of pride and cultural investment?

    Sure they’re overly sensitive, stupidly vain, and in many cases just dumb bigots. But in the majority of cases they are not wicked, and our messaging and handling of them just seems to miss the mark so far – that is, when we don’t cede them entirely as not worth the trouble. Isn’t a Trump vote from this set more of a destructive cry for help than coldly calculating anarchism?

    • ap77 says:

      Sure they’re overly sensitive, stupidly vain, and in many cases just dumb bigots. But in the majority of cases they are not wicked, and our messaging and handling of them just seems to miss the mark so far – that is, when we don’t cede them entirely as not worth the trouble. Isn’t a Trump vote from this set more of a destructive cry for help than coldly calculating anarchism?

      Voting for Trump seems pretty wicked to me.

      • jpgray says:

        You can’t excuse or ignore the fact of that, but a single action isn’t always the key to someone’s entire identity forever.

        I support banning the box and voting rights for ex-offenders. This doesn’t mean I see felonies as harmless, unwicked acts. What I don’t believe is that all those who commit them are irredeemably and purposely wicked. Insofar as they aren’t, they don’t need to be made more desperate or further ostracized.

        • DocAmazing says:

          No, but they are adults with agency. If they shafted themselves. it is not wrong to let them marinate in that, at least for a time. They don’t wan to be rescued; they’ve made that clear.

        • Bruce B. says:

          But it’s not an action in isolation. I commented on this the other day: I have been frequently startled and sometimes outright shocked at the disinhibiting I’ve seen in Trump votes I’ve known for years or decades. These are, in some cases, people who have made generous sacrifices on behalf of others in need – in several of these, to help me. These are people I’ve trusted and always had that trust repaid…until now. Trump is their outdoors id wandering the world, but they’re letting their own ids out too, with cruel vulgarity and actively malicious cruelty. I feel like I’m watching the final scenes of Twin Peaks again and again.

          It sucks. A lot. Watching people gleefully diminish themselves and sacrifice so much of what’s been distinctive about them is horribly depressing.

          • Asteroid_Strike_Brexit says:

            This was a consequence of the extreme incivility of Trump’s campaign. This was new to modern American presidential elections.

          • epidemiologist says:

            The few that I have kept in touch with have been going downhill for a while. They got somewhat worse this election season and after, but my feelings about them changed too. I am in IL, so up to now my right wing acquaintances were mostly powerless malcontents. This election they succeeded in hurting other people, in a big way. The ones I know are totally unrepentant.

            I have been especially stunned by a high school teacher I leaned on a lot as a teenager. This man was a lawyer before becoming a history teacher, yet routinely posts unhinged rants about protestors and appears to believe that many of these actions violate the first amendment in some way. I took some excellent history classes from him and I know he cannot possibly really believe that!

            What is really scary to me is how much he and others seem to believe that no moral or ethical limits apply to their interactions with others if the content is political. A comment that people should shoot protestors goes unanswered. His swamp family insult and harass his former students on his page. Once he called me an idiot and undemocratic for participating in an attempt to request all the tickets for a Trump campaign event on my campus, then not go.

            It is heartbreaking to watch and be pretty sure the mentor I loved is gone.

  14. ArlingtonVaGuy2 says:

    Keep hating on “dumb hicks” and soon you will have the white vote look like the black vote in terms of polarization. There are only so many un/under employed whitte college grads. Good job! Enjoy life in nouvelle South Africa, comrades.

  15. Nick Conway says:

    Do you think ACA recipients were won by Trump? I don’t know if anyone polled that or how you would even poll that since plenty of people don’t know they’re healthcare is from obamacare or don’t want to admit it.

    But I could see it going either way. Like I see that poor republican counties rely on it, but how many of the poor white recipients are voting? And then we know black and Hispanic people received a ton of benefit from the ACA and overwhelmingly voted dem. seems like it would be close

    • Davebo says:

      And then we know black and Hispanic people received a ton of benefit from the ACA and overwhelmingly voted dem. seems like it would be close

      Of course, given the huge black and hispanic population of western Washington State.

      Seriously?

    • JonH says:

      “Do you think ACA recipients were won by Trump?”

      I’m sure plenty of ACA recipients voted for him.

      • Nick Conway says:

        Yea I’m saying, if you could poll the 20 million who get their insurance thru ACA, who won more votes Trump or Clinton? Obviously this post shows Plenty of ACA recipients voted for Trump, but did he actually win that segment of the population? Just seems interesting because I honestly have no idea what the answer is, you could convince me ACA recipients voted overwhelmingly for Trump or Clinton and I wouldn’t be shocked either way

  16. ArlingtonVaGuy2 says:

    Keep shitting on “dumb hicks” and see what you get in terrms of policy. I personally am looking forward to decline in DC rents/RE values in DC as Trump “drains the swamp.” YMMV

    • paul.c.klos says:

      But if the property values decline that kind impacts the whole community negatively (economically that is). In your example what is driving this 200K income surly not the population of an affordable fantasy Mayberry.

    • efgoldman says:

      I personally am looking forward to decline in DC rents/RE values in DC as Trump “drains the swamp.”

      I hope you’re holding your breath – blue is my favorite color.
      Begone, racist shitscum.

    • Gizmo says:

      Thats pretty delusional. The guy is the bringing with him an army of well-paid grifters and hucksters to make a buck scamming the taxpayers. Career civil servants will get the boot for doing their jobs, and oily K-street lobby weasels will have no trouble making down-payments on nice places in Georgetown.

      Goldman Sachs will open a branch office to manage the Social Security account. Charter school scammers will take up permanent residence. Aramark management will relocate to DC to better work with their ‘regulatory team’ while they manage the national park system. The Koch industries management team will relocate in order to better supervise EPA work.

      Trump’s business ethics and decency wouldn’t fill a thimble. Its gonna be a golden age of robber barons, all over again. If we’re lucky, public anger will deflect some of it.

  17. NYD3030 says:

    If the reporting on Vox is accurate, people believed Trump when he said he’d replace the ACA with something better. We need to recognize that our signature policy achievement of this generation is both a huge improvement on the status quo and also woefully inadequate, especially for those on the individual marketplace. The people most benefited by the ACA were also the least likely voters, while middle class people received little help in the form of subsidies while purchasing what most of us recognize as shitty, expensive insurance. My point is that I don’t think you can say that policy has no effect on voting patterns, but rather this policy was poorly designed from the perspective of creating a political constituency. It’s confusing and becomes increasingly less helpful for demographic groups more likely to vote.

    • Davebo says:

      middle class people received little help in the form of subsidies while purchasing what most of us recognize as shitty, expensive insurance.

      The insurance certainly can be expensive but it’s not at all shitty.

      In fact, the biggest complaint of the demographic you mention is that they aren’t allowed to buy shitty insurance under ACA.

      • NYD3030 says:

        When I say shitty, I mean it comes with significant out of pocket costs as well as high premiums. As far as what it covers you are correct, it’s quite comprehensive. So really I was less clear than I should have been in calling it shitty.

        • Davebo says:

          I would argue that it is more than competitive regarding both out of pocket costs and premiums on the individual market which one would assume most of it’s clients are in.

          Have you ever bought a policy on the individual market?

          • PhoenixRising says:

            No one who thinks the ACA is bad has ever tried to buy health insurance for a family before. If they had, they’d be delighted, regardless of their premium.

            I’ve found that the whiners are mainly healthy people in their 50s who planned to go bare in their early retirement, or spend $150 a month on a junk policy, and let the rest of us pay if they got seriously ill before Medicare kicked in.

            They’re furious that they have to help pay for a system that’s protected them and their kids, to cover the freelancer nation, since they have never made any sizable claims. They want an Uber to pick them up to take them to their AirBnB and they want the unlucky people who are piecing a living out of the sharing economy to die quietly if they get sick.

            People who complain about the ACA are not decent people with bad ideas; they’re ideologues from the church of FYIGM who won’t rest until they have used 100% of the advantages bought with their grandparents’ sacrifices in the 20th century and have handed the bill to our kids.

            • Little Chak says:

              They’re also people like a former co-worker in college who called Obama “the n***er in chief” (that ended our “friendship”), who was furious at having to pay even his measly premium as a relatively healthy single guy in his early twenties.

              They want us all to play the reverse lottery (with much, much greater odds of “winning” a catastrophic health problem without insurance) just like them, and I’m really sick of it, especially considering that they consider themselves “the party of personal responsibility” and proudly fly bumper stickers that say: “Republican: I Work Hard So You Don’t Have To”.

              And now my parents, who did everything right: paid into the system despite being kinda poor, worked extremely hard their entire lives, poured their hearts into raising three kids; now they, white working class heroes, get to wonder if the rug is going to get pulled out from under them, because the “party of personal responsibility” thinks that it’s just tough shit that my dad got cancer and can’t afford the prescriptions he needs to survive without a thyroid.

              Maybe instead of being responsible and paying for health insurance all these years, even though they could barely afford it, they should have bought lottery tickets, or enrolled in Trump University to better themselves.

              ETA: “Did everything right” including voting for Democrats who would fight for basic, life-saving healthcare as a human right.

          • NYD3030 says:

            No I have not. As I said, it was an improvement to the status quo, however the status quo was awful. So the insurance on the exchange can be ‘competitive’ with other individual offerings or pre ACA offerings and still be really expensive. Most American with private health insurance receive it through an employer, and compared to that the exchange policies are expensive. I fully understand why that is but it doesn’t change the fact that a significant percentage of people are required to buy insurance they don’t feel they can afford, that costs a lot more out of pocket than the employer insurance they once had, and that the government isn’t subsidizing much if at all.

            I think it’s a huge improvement over what existed before, I just don’t think it was designed in such a way that creates political support in the same way as the New Deal and Great Society programs, because it’s means tested and the majority of Americans at any given time don’t perceive any benefit.

        • Little Chak says:

          To add on to what Davebo said: My parents are solidly lower-middle class. Worked extremely hard their entire lives, but at jobs that just didn’t pay much. My dad got thyroid cancer about ten years ago. They are now in a situation where the repeal of the ACA could mean that they can’t afford the medication he needs to survive.

          They have conservative friends on Facebook who will tell them that Obamacare is this awful socialist program that steals from the rich, but then these same people will turn around and tell them that, well…no, they (my parents) aren’t like those other people.

          And people just flat-out don’t understand insurance. These friends make more than my parents do, but live less responsibly (possibly because they have fewer responsibilities). They bitch and moan about being mandated to pay into the system, behaving like spoiled, entitled children who refuse to take their medicine, despite the fact that a mandate of some kind is the only way to make the system work. People who are actually fairly well-off and living comfortable lives are angry that they have to pay into a health insurance pool so that my Dad can live. Because they know that they aren’t going to get sick, and why shouldn’t they spend the money on that killer 4K TV that they’ve had their eye on, or a down payment on a brand new truck or boat? Freedom, baby. Ben Shapiro said so. Who the fuck does my dad think he is, to demand his charity?

          So excuse me if I say: to hell with the idea that the ACA isn’t miles and miles better than the alternative. I’ve seen the individual market without the ACA, up close and personal, and it ain’t pretty. There are a lot of people who pay way less, and a lot of people whose lives depend on it. There are also a lot of people who pay slightly less; a lot of people who have to pay slightly more; and, there are a lot of middle-class and upper-middle class people who have to pay significantly more, because they previously chose to be freeloading leeches, despite being able to afford insurance.

          Please forgive me if I have zero fucks to give for those people. And please help me to sell those people on why subsidized health insurance that requires those who can pay, to pay, is the opposite of evil. Rather than having some esoteric debate about the law’s “inadequacy”, why don’t you join the fight and help me convince some of these people — the ones who are reachable — that Ben Shapiro is wrong, and the rich should absolutely be willing to subsidize healthcare for people like my parents?

          If you’re not willing to do the hard work to explain why the ACA is a step in the right direction, is worth defending, and that individual mandates are okay, you are never going to have a more redistributive healthcare system.

          That guy getting a standing ovation at the Republican representative’s Townhall for saying that his wife would die if they repealed the ACA? Making a difference.

          Help. Please. You can make a difference, too.

    • JKTH says:

      Yeah it would have been nice if Clinton had proposed a public option to make insurance cheaper and higher subsidies so people could purchase more comprehensive insurance.

      Oh wait, she did!

      • NYD3030 says:

        That’s true, however most people don’t really know that. It wasn’t a central point of Clinton’s campaign. Policy in general wasn’t, which I’d like to think was a mistake but I’m not certain it would have made a difference. On the policy level people favor Democratic positions on most things and have for a long time. However I’m fairly convinced that technocratic center left policies designed to be as invisible as possible will probably be treated that way, even of they genuinely help a lot of people.

  18. LosGatosCA says:

    I think you have to go back to the basics –

    Jay Gould was more right than he ever imagined

    And George Carlin summarized the problem perfectly:

    ‘Think of how smart the average person is, and then think that half the people are stupider than that.”

    I’d say the overlap of Republicans, Jay Gould’s Army, and the lower 50 percentile is 100%. The Republican population is only expanded by the evil leaders of Jay Gould’s Army and the 1% who are just interested in raping and pillaging the economy because . . . raping and pillaging is their idea of fun and they’ve convinced the Jay Gould volunteers they can be one of the p***y gr****rs not the ones being grabbed.

    Let’s just close this with another cliche – never give a sucker, there’s one born every minute, an even break, but do get them to register for the party that represents the right, white people.

  19. gmoot says:

    What’s often lost in discussions of rural America’s Trump voters is the fact that rural America is OLD. The median age of the rural population (including kids) is 43, compared to 36 in urban areas: this is a huge difference, by demography standards.

    Old people vote, they tend to vote Republican, and they tend to have calcified political identities that can’t be shaken loose even in the face of a buffoon like Trump. They’re also more likely to hold traditional gender views, including the view that women don’t belong in politics, which I’m sure didn’t help HRC.

    Any Dem strategy to win over rural voters has to include hammering the Repubs hard on Social Security.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.