According to CNN's exit poll data, Clinton won "union households" with 51 percent to Trump's 43 percent—a shockingly low number for such a historically Democratic base. Clinton lost independents 48-42 percent in favor of Trump (unfortunately, CNN doesn't list independent candidates in national data, offering only "Other/No Answer," which scored 10 percent of the independent vote).
Clinton was only able to win voters under the age of 30 with 55 percent to Trump's 37 percent, while 8 percent of young millennials went into the the all-encompassing "Other" category. While Clinton won the group overall, it is highly relevant that the Democratic nominee lost 10 percent of self-described "liberals" to Trump, with 6 percent responding "Other/No Answer."
But self-reflection is hard and blaming the deliberately marginalized voices of third party voters by the Democratic and Republican parties is easier.
What you have is a defeat of elitism. Clinton’s arrogance was on full display with the revelation of her speeches cozying up to Goldman Sachs—the bank that caused this misery more than any other—and the irony of this is not lost on the people who are hurting and can’t pay their bills. This is a victory for a neofascist populism—scapegoating immigrants and Muslims—and if Bernie Sanders had been the Democrats’ candidate, I feel confident he would have won. We were denied the opportunity of a confrontation between a progressive populist, represented by Sanders, and a neofascist populist.
It’s a repudiation of the arrogant elitism of the Democratic Party machine as represented by the Clintons, whose radical deregulation of Wall Street created this mess. And instead of recognizing the error of their ways and standing up to the banks, Clinton’s campaign cozied up to them, and that did not give people who are hurting confidence that she would respond to their needs or that she gave a damn about their suffering. She’s terminally tone-deaf.
Put simply, Democrats knowingly chose to nominate a deeply unpopular, extremely vulnerable, scandal-plagued candidate, who — for very good reason — was widely perceived to be a protector and beneficiary of all the worst components of status quo elite corruption. It’s astonishing that those of us who tried frantically to warn Democrats that nominating Hillary Clinton was a huge and scary gamble — that all empirical evidence showed that she could lose to anyone and Bernie Sanders would be a much stronger candidate, especially in this climate — are now the ones being blamed: by the very same people who insisted on ignoring all that data and nominating her anyway.
But that’s just basic blame shifting and self-preservation. Far more significant is what this shows about the mentality of the Democratic Party. Just think about who they nominated: someone who — when she wasn’t dining with Saudi monarchs and being feted in Davos by tyrants who gave million-dollar checks — spent the last several years piggishly running around to Wall Street banks and major corporations cashing in with $250,000 fees for 45-minute secret speeches even though she had already become unimaginably rich with book advances while her husband already made tens of millions playing these same games. She did all that without the slightest apparent concern for how that would feed into all the perceptions and resentments of her and the Democratic Party as corrupt, status quo-protecting, aristocratic tools of the rich and powerful: exactly the worst possible behavior for this post-2008-economic-crisis era of globalism and destroyed industries.
It goes without saying that Trump is a sociopathic con artist obsessed with personal enrichment: the opposite of a genuine warrior for the downtrodden. That’s too obvious to debate. But, just as Obama did so powerfully in 2008, he could credibly run as an enemy of the D.C. and Wall Street system that has steamrolled over so many people, while Hillary Clinton is its loyal guardian, its consummate beneficiary.
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
What are the odds of him being somewhat normal? or is he going to throw a yuuuge tantrum?
Fuck. You. All.
If you had known this was going to happen, wouldn't you have nominated any other Democrat? Al Gore, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Tim Kaine, Howard Dean... any of these would have had a better shot than a candidate with negative favorability*. Even Bernie Sanders, who had worse chances than any of those other big name Dems. But even he wasn't in the negatives. If you had known this wouldn't work, wouldn't you have picked a better candidate?
But you *did* know, Democrats. The polls told you, two years ago, a year ago, yesterday. The polls back then even told you how many points would go to whoever the Greens put up there. Nader or whoever; didn't matter. Two years ago the polls told you how this was going to play out. But you Democrats did this to yourselves anyway.
But here we go. It's all Jill Steins fault. All those Green voters are stupid. It's *their* fault for being so stupid. Think about that. How can they be stupid ones? When you Democrats knew all along what was going to happen?
Kiss Roe v. Wade goodbye. All because yet another old white guy, Al or Joe or Bernie or Tim wasn't good enough for you. You had do have it this way.
* Not her fault. Not fair. The things they accuse her of are absurd. But it's a fact that she was and is unpopular, and unelectable. Or at least damn nearly so.
So you should be happy at the news that Trump appears to be winning.
Because "The Revolution."
So fuck you.
@11, glad this made your night. The ball is now in your court.
So people, get ready for religious test, pussy grabbing and the wall 'cause everything outside the wall goes to Putin. Rich people will get richer once the market recover (that wasn't going to change either way). More Ivanka clothes and big game hunting.
From the election, Trump will claim a mandate because the bitter truth is Congress went red. SC will go 5-4 conservative. We can bow to the new AG, Giuliani.
This is way bigger than Brexit. Kiss Obamacare goodbye. Canada immigration site just crashed BTW.
The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. But we are running out of time. I weep for my country. I weep for my world. But most of all, I weep for the young.
@30, yes. This is much worse. Or maybe it's just the buildup of sadness and disappointment over the years and the fact that we don't have as much time ahead to hope as we did after those losses.
I'm not talking about Bernie Sanders supporters who swallowed their pride and supported Clinton when she beat him to the Dem nomination. I have no disrespect for them.
I'm talking to those who refused to vote at all when Bernie lost.
To those people, tell me when I can expect The Revolution. I'm waiting. I'll even help. But you'd better deliver.
First Latina, Cortez Masto, is heading to the US senate.
A Somali-American woman, Ilhan Omar, will head to the Minnesota state legislature. What she said: "Our democracy is great, but it's fragile."
I thought Bernie and Elizabeth Warren were good starting point to counter this billionaire cartel. Those Trump supporters have no love for establishment Republicans or Democrats either. They believed Trump was going to give them back their American Dream. (He won't because he can't go against his self interest.) What he'll do is satisfy them with racism, sexism, and religious intolerance. He'll throw vulnerable, disenfranchised groups under the bus by trampling on their civil and constitutional rights.
The US economy may be recovering and wages going up slightly, but we still have wage stagnation and failing infrastructure in too many places where hope disappeared. Those people don't live in nice 'progressive' places like Seattle. They want their nice, white lives back. They want to be on top again. So if they can't beat the billionaires, they'll want a political and social hierarchy which will favor their fortune above others.
That's what this election was about.
What f*cking circular firing squad? The Democratic Party STILL blames Ralph Nader for 2000. I've heard them say it! They've NEVER taken responsibility for abandoning the working class since 1972. The national Dems support a meritocracy, charter schools, "innovation" and "winners" on Wall Street and in Silicon Valley. They are the party of lawyers, doctors, professors, engineers, investment bankers and computer executives. The professional class that used to be Republicans.
[See Thomas Franks's "Listen Liberal: Or Whatever Happened to the Party of the People?"]
What's not to like if you're a teacher or fast-food worker? The Dems have been blind and deaf to the needs of the working poor. So the working poor don't turn out anymore because nobody represents them.
Show us the jobs. Show us the economy. Show us how you're going to bring what you promised.
You can't blame anything. ANYTHING. on democrats for the next two years. It's all on you.
I'll be waiting.
I'll be waiting.
This is what happens when you nominate the Senator from Goldman-Sachs in an election that turns out to be about how much the working class is hurting.
This is what happens when the NAFTA chickens come home to roost.
This is what happens when your candidate spends her time in prior offices supporting stupid wars that do nothing to secure the country.
Above all, this is what happens when your candidate selection process is a coronation managed by party elites.
I'm not at all happy Trump won. I'm worried about what the future holds. But the silver lining is that Clinton lost. Maybe we can finally be rid of that family once and for all.
The other silver lining is the Democrats finally have the opportunity to purge their elitist globalist wing, now that they've failed so spectacularly and against such an opponent. I find it inconceivable that Trump will actually be able to deliver for his followers. That presents Democrats with an opportunity to return to being a party of labor and build a real coalition for the future. That's going to take some creativity and some willingness to stand up to the moneyed interests. I'm not at all sure that the current crop is up to the job.
All we can hope for now is that the "punch in the face to Washington" works out like they dream. I have deep doubts that it will, but I can hope to be completely, utterly wrong.
See @48, read it, and die. All other gloating idiots can join you.
@47 Knat, re @45 Urgutha Forka: I second that yep.
Looks like you must have meant Clinton when you said Trump.
Time to get the petition out and start the ball rolling on Cascadia.
After all the talk of the fracturing/destruction of the Republican Party as we know it, they prevailed.
I blame the media.
He played them.
Why wasn't he successfully tagged as a billionaire elite who rips people off, as someone who is the opposite of what he claimed to be? Not in editorials but in loud clear pointed reporting?
His lying propaganda needed to be answered. Not just displayed on his stage. People (apparently) believe lies.
Liberal media went to sleep during Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld atrocities.
I hope they behave differently this time.
Not that it's not too late.
now look what you guys went and made us do.....
is it The Revolution?!
Did they start without us?!?
It is the sunrise.....
It is time to start the National Reconciliation.
The line for hugs starts over there......
The line for folks wanting to be groped is over here.
Who'd have thought that the lower-middle class wouldn't show enthusiasm for the DNC's coronation of someone LITERALLY married to a Wall Street hedge fund, who's dynasty had gleefully presided over the effort to shove working-class jobs out of the country at the greatest possible rate? That worked out well, didn't it?
But the democratic party goes out of their way to degrade, demean, and blame them for every problem under the sun. The republican party does not. Why do you think they vote GOP?
You guys are already doing in in this thread. Blaming those dumb, rural white devils for voting for the candidate they wanted. Maybe the democratic party should have done something, anything to get their vote. Maybe Clinton should not have told coal miners she wanted them not to have a job. Maybe the democratic party (and outspoken liberals) should drop the obvious disdain they have for rural people.
Because can you imagine if Clinton had not run against the second worst candidate of all time? An actual politician who knew what he was doing, who actually ran a campaign? It would have been a bloodbath.
That worked out so well in 1980, and 1994, and 2000, and 2014. What could possibly go wrong?!?
Relying on the promise of changing demographics doesn't win you elections when you actively decide to alienate large numbers of the population and especially when your candidate already isn't well liked.
But hey, I disagreed with a commentator on Slog a few weeks ago and that made me a "raging bigot" Enjoy the short end of inauguration day: THE LEFT LOST THIS ELECTION ALL BY THEMSELVES: TRUMP SURE AS HELL DIDN'T DO ANYTHING TO WIN.
@59 I keep thinking "Italy survived Berlusconi, we can survive this." But Italy has a lot fewer aircraft carriers than we do, which may limit their ability to get into deep shit...
But they really don't know what they are getting from Trump. But they will rebound, just like they did after the equally unexpected Brexit vote.
But sure, keep taking a shit on those voters and see how that helps you. It take years for the demographic changes the left is gambling on to really make a huge difference politically: it was never going to be overnight
Lip service. The Ds had a choice in the mid-90s: remain the party of labor and fight a rear-guard action against job loss to globalization (not stop job loss, but try to keep the brakes on) or go all in for "Wall Street, Wall Street Uber Alles." They chose the latter. and put Ron Brown on a plane to China every month, despite China being our biggest strategic and economic threat in that decade.
Yesterday the chickens of "triangulation" came home to roost.
Everyone wants to attribute Trump's victory to racism. Racism is a symptom, not a cause. The need for a simple scapegoat because the true causes of the suffering experienced are too complex to tackle.
The cause is poverty, is desperation, is a sense of being disenfranchised. The cause is people telling whites experiencing abject poverty to check their privilege.
The left has dived headfirst into Godwin's law, but completely ignored the conditions that led to Hitler's rise to power in the first place. The left failed to do anything to address the issues that large swaths of Americans face, instead doubling down on identity politics and insults toward rural America. Is it really any surprise that this was their response?
Maybe, just maybe, if Hillary had pretended to give a crap about the issues affecting rural America instead of smugly insulting them, the results would have been different.
Also, it is way too early to be drunk, take a nap. It looks like your post was banged out with your fists.
don't benefit from, but are more victims of!
He's got a mandate. He has Congress, the US Supreme Court and this nation's intelligence apparatus.
What will he do to deliver to the disenfranchised? And by focusing on the disenfranchised who voted for him, those white, working class voters, will he leave out the other disenfranchised folks because they are politically expedient? Is this nation going to embrace torture, religious test and misogyny as well?
I share some of the frustrations these voters have against both parties' establishment, but I take little heart in seeing the depth of resentment and hate I see right now. I didn't see anything from Donald Trump during the campaign about HOW he's going to make 'America great again'.
...how is he going to open up shuttered factories in Ohio and coal mines in Kentucky, while cutting taxes for the wealthy? . . . What will he do to deliver to the disenfranchised?
Never said that he would.
Those votes were acts of desperation and outrage. They picked the candidate who pretended to give a crap and have a plan over the one who openly and flagrantly wrote them off.
Not saying he's a savior by any means. Just saying I'm not terribly surprised.
Dem 'machine' was too clever by half this time around and they ran a bad campaign despite having more experience. They didn't get out the vote.
They still won the popular vote - There is no mandate for DJT.
Will be interesting for us two to be on the same side of the divide.
With Trump taking Michigan and Arizona, and Hillary taking New Hampshire, it now appears that the final electoral count will be 306 - 232. There are only TWO states in which Jill Stein's votes exceed the margin of Trump's victory: Wisconsin and Michigan. If you make the assumption that if Jill didn't run all of her voters would have voted for Hillary (a false assumption -- exit polls indicate only a quarter of Stein voters would have voted Clinton in a two-person race), those are the ONLY two states where the electoral outcome would change. So for the sake of argument if you transfer Wisconsin's (10) and Michigan's (16) electoral votes from Trump to Hillary, the final electoral count still has Trump winning 280 - 258.
Jill Stein did not "spoil" the outcome, period. If you perpetuate that myth, you are a liar.
Did Gary Johnson throw the election to Trump? It's true that Johnson's votes exceed Trump's margins in several states. But did Johnson pull all of his votes from Clinton? Of course not. Whether Johnson pulled from both candidates equally or hurt one over the other may be impossible to say. But based on earlier polling a WaPo examination found, "on current evidence, the Libertarian ticket is having a largely neutral but slightly pro-Clinton effect on the race as a whole", while fivethirtyeight reported, "overall, including third-party candidates takes about 1 percentage point away from Clinton’s margin, on average". So if Johnson had any effect on the outcome, it was likely minimal.
In the end, you are grasping at straws if you put the blame on Johnson, and you are outright lying if you try to blame Jill. Third parties did not lose this election for Clinton. She did that by her damned self. The real question you need to be asking is why Hillary failed to inspire a winning majority. She lost so many voters a progressive candidate should have won:
The painful truth that you're going to have to come to terms with is that you put up a bad candidate. Robert Scheer and Gleen Greenwald cut straight to the heart of the matter in their pieces this morning.