Thought provoking read

[Econoline]

Yeah, it's too bad Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, et al. did no campaigning, gave no interviews, gave no speeches, and put forth no policy proposals...

[Sue U]

I get really suspicious when anyone claims to base some insight on "having many liberal friends who would talk this way."

Yeah, but this wasn't a conservative who said she has some liberal friends who talk this way...

This was a liberal saying it....

And if you know who Karen Finney is, then you know that in all likelihood she has a lot of liberal friends...

I have a lot of "liberal" friends, too. Many of them come from working class backgrounds and would fall down laughing if they were called "elites" (although one jokes that "my ghetto pass was revoked" after she went to law school). But none of them has ever suggested anything like what is being suggested here.

[Crackpot]

Name one that specifically addressed to the loss of jobs in rural/small town America? Also known as "not thier base voting bloc"

[Lord Jim]

did indeed vote against their own interests...whether they know it or not. And I'm neither "coastal" nor "elite".

Well, you don't live on the coast anyway...

What about a person who has a very strong religious and philosophical opposition to abortion, someone who deeply and sincerely believes it is murder, who defined "their interest" as voting for someone most likely to appoint judges who would reflect their views on this?

Why wouldn't it have been a rational decision for a person like that to decide to vote for Trump over Clinton?

I obviously do not agree with that reasoning, but I don't think it's "crazy"...

If you're one of those people, (and there are millions of them) for whom abortion is the paramount issue that matters to you, it seems reasonable for a person to assume (particularly after Trump published his list) that even though Trump had no personal record of being particularly anti-abortion, or even having any real interest in the topic, that he would be more likely than Hillary Clinton to appoint judges who would be sympathetic to laws restricting abortion,

That seems like a rational conclusion to me...

[Sue U]

Name one that specifically addressed to the loss of jobs in rural/small town America? Also known as "not thier base voting bloc"

Here, let me google that for you (first result):

http://www.npr.org/2016/08/11/489563362 ... t-to-trump

ETA:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/r ... mmunities/

http://www.whatthefolly.com/2015/08/26/ ... cy-part-1/

[Crackpot]

And where exactly did she talk about helping those areas destroyed by outsourcing?

[Crackpot]

And for the record I'm pro free trade but I think this country has done a piss poor job at helping people and regions hurt by it.

[Sue U]

And where exactly did she talk about helping those areas destroyed by outsourcing?

Seriously, do you need me to spoon feed you this? Because it's a little late now.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing ... jobs-plan/

I'm not going to go through every speech, policy paper, or website blurb for you. Hillary spent the entire campaign talking about substantive issues. But all you ever heard from the media was "emails."

[Econoline]

Name one that specifically addressed to the loss of jobs in rural/small town America? Also known as "not thier base voting bloc"

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders...as for "et al." you may be right about the Democratic Party power structure in general (it's definitely gotten worse since Howard Dean's "50-State Strategy" in 2008) but that still doesn't explain why rural Americans trusted Trump despite his lack of anything but vague generalities about "bringing manufacturing back" (how?), "bringing coal mining back" (how?), etc. The only explanation I can think of is, "Better the devil we don't know than the devil we know."

Hillary spent the entire campaign talking about substantive issues. But all you ever heard from the media was "emails."

Yeah, that's pretty much it. No matter what she or her surrogates said, it was overwhelmed by media that found every outrageous utterance by Trump so much more "newsworthy". In order to find out about her policy proposals you had to search them out...whereas you didn't have to search for specific policy proposals from Trump, because he didn't have any. (So *WHO* thought voters were stupid, again?)

[Bicycle Bill]

I am certain that many voted for him actually believing he was a better choice than Clinton, for whatever reasons they deemed important (and which I do not pretend to know).

And I believe just as many voted for Trump because he was had a prick and she didn't.  It might have been a whole 'nother ball game if the Democratic candidate had been another white male.
Like it or not, sexism is more prevalent in politics than most people will admit.  I know that if for some reason both major parties were to run females at the head of the ticket, the Libertarians would have their best chance ever to get their (male) candidate into the White House.  Hell, even Vermin Supreme would stand a chance.

-"BB"-

[Guinevere]

Beat me to it, BB. There remains an intense double standard in this country. Just look at the crap the King Trumpanzee is doing that would be generating screams of outrage if it was HRC -- like putting much of his policy advice in the hands of former Goldman Sachs directors (starting w Bannon), allowing his top advisors to use private emails/servers (and using his own unsecured phone), his legions of conflicts of interest, his "low energy"/short days/vacations, and his poor decision making (and lack of presence in the sit room because it was too late in the evening) regarding the Yemen attack.

[rubato]

The OP is just a re-hash of Republican propaganda which has been in use for many years now.

The use of the term "elites" is a contentless intended insult. they are saying "I have nothing which is accurate and insulting to liberals so I'll make up this term and sneer it a little". It is akin to Rush Limbaugh's use of the terms "Liberal" and Feminist; it bears no relationship to the actual meanings. "Elite" means nothing unless it is defined and membership in most classes of elites is good thing and often praiseworthy. Elite scientists, Elite athletes, elite literary figures, elite musicians, artists, actors are all good things, Elite in wealth is morally neutral but a large share of the greediest of them are Republicans anyway}. I suppose there are elite criminals as well but if that is what they meant they would just call them criminals and be done with it.

Liberal states do have a large majority of the elite universities due to a pretty straight-line cause and effect relationship between education and liberalism.

The oft-repeated claim that the liberal elites on the coast look down on the flyover states is yet another nasty morsel of propaganda. They are stirring up hatred and resentment for beliefs which on the whole do not represent how liberals think.

Speaking of self-interest: I usually vote against my narrow financial self-interest but it serves my greater self interest to have a world where I have less money but it is fairer, there are fewer poor people and fewer people afraid for their own futures education is better and health care is better for all. So it really is serving my higher self-interests to do so. But one cannot say that someone with a household income of $50,000 or less (half of the country) is serving their own self-interests differently construed to vote for Republicans who want to take away their healthcare, take away benefits, eliminate Social Security and Medicare, allow coal miners to pollute rivers which supply their water, stop testing for lead in schools &c. and give me a tax break of $50,000/yr in exchange. That is just insane. Most people want a world where their children are well fed, sheltered, not choking with pollution, and have a bright future.



yrs,
rubato

[Crackpot]

Example: Hilary came out specifically against coal. What specifically did she promise to those communities that would be losing those coal jobs? Vauge retraining?! For what jobs those communities are one company towns! The fact that you guys can't recognize this as a problem shows you're still not getting it.

[Guinevere]

Do you think she was going to wave her magic wand and make all coal production cease instantaneously? West Virginia with all its mountain tops is a great place for wind energy. Some, but certainly not all, in coal production could probably be retrained to work in installing repairing maintaining etc wind farms.

[Crackpot]

And what about the rest of the people who have been fighing over jobs with dwindling demand year after year watching thier communities slowly die? There needs to be better solutions than replacing the few remaining jobs with even fewer "probably" jobs.


You want to win back middle America you are going to have to show that you understand thier problems

[Sue U]

Coal is never coming back, and not because of Hillary Clinton or the federal government or any politician's jobs policy. It is a victim of falling prices in the oil and gas industry, primarily, and the inability of the coal industry itself to come up with a cost effective solution for its environmental problems.

But that's emblematic of a number of 20th century industries and agriculture as well. It makes a lot more sense to concentrate on job opportunities in the economy of the future rather than that of the past.

[rubato]

The coal jobs were replaced long ago by better industries:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccart ... 43ca467d27

Solar Employs More People In U.S. Electricity Generation Than Oil, Coal And Gas Combined

Niall McCarthy ,

Data journalist covering technological, societal and media topics

In the United States, more people were employed in solar power last year than in generating electricity through coal, gas and oil energy combined. According to a new report from the U.S. Department of Energy, solar power employed 43 percent of the Electric Power Generation sector's workforce in 2016, while fossil fuels combined accounted for just 22 percent. It's a welcome statistic for those seeking to refute Donald Trump's assertion that green energy projects are bad news for the American economy.

Just under 374,000 people were employed in solar energy, according to the report, while coal, gas and oil power generation combined had a workforce of slightly more than 187,000. The boom in the country's solar workforce can be attributed to construction work associated with expanding generation capacity. The gulf in employment is growing with net generation from coal falling 53 percent over the last decade. During the same period, electricity generation from natural gas increased 33 percent while solar expanded 5,000 percent. ... "

Industries change. Get used to it.





yrs,
rubato

[Guinevere]

Apparently the only answer CP will accept is along the lines of "MA GA," and similar vague sweeping BS.

I understand the campaigns are about vision and future, but there also has to be some element of reality involved.

[rubato]

And what about the rest of the people who have been fighing over jobs with dwindling demand year after year watching thier communities slowly die? There needs to be better solutions than replacing the few remaining jobs with even fewer "probably" jobs.


You want to win back middle America you are going to have to show that you understand thier problems

Things change. if we don't need high levels of labor in agriculture then we don't need large numbers of people living in the agricultural areas and populations will go down. Trying to paper over something like that is like trying to stop the tides. No point in whining about it.

Coastal Florida is going underwater and those people are going to have to move. The Salton Sea is undergoing an unstoppable environmental change which will make living near there (think Palm Springs and Palm Desert) unbearable for most people. I wouldn't buy a house there, invest in commercial RE there or &c.

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

Apparently the only answer CP will accept is along the lines of "MA GA," and similar vague sweeping BS.

I understand the campaigns are about vision and future, but there also has to be some element of reality involved.

The things we should be doing for the future are deciding which new technologies and types of infrastructure we will need and invest in those. That will create jobs doing useful work and making our lives better.

I've used High speed (and mid-speed 90 mph) rail in Europe and it works. We should be building it now. Fast, quiet, efficient, safe and no annoying security checks. Hop out of a cab, validate your TGV ticket at the station, hop on the train and it takes off. No checkin, no security checks. Voila!

yrs,
rubato