This is the crux of why Trump's pandering to them was total bullshit. He can't do anything to help them because the jobs that left aren't coming back. In four years they will be in the same position they are now but they wont have a black man or a Democrat to blame for it and so they wont be quite as bitter about it.
I think this is a bit dismissive of the issue --and the thinking that sunk the Hillary's campaign.
In terms of trade, the US typically like to pay it forward --it lets trade partners have a slight advantage so long as it sees a net positive (see China) presumably Trump would ask for equal benefits.
So rather than asking is this good for the global economy his administration might instead ask, is this good for the US economy? While the answer to the questions often overlap, at times the current answer does not optimize of the US economy.
> In terms of trade, the US typically like to pay it forward --it lets trade partners have a slight advantage so long as it sees a net positive (see China) presumably Trump would ask for equal benefits.
That's a weird language. It's to the best benefit of the country to just adopt unilateral free trade. No need to bargain.
Of course, politically, that's not feasible.
But there's no `benefit' that comes at a cost to the country when allowing your citizens to freely trade with other countries citizens.
>It's to the best benefit of the country to just adopt unilateral free trade. No need to bargain
I'm not seeing Brazil, Japan or China adopt this philosophy --even the EU. If you were to start unilateral free trade what happens is others will protect themselves and you are left holding the deficit bag. Your consumers will be happy (yay consumerism!), but your wage-earners will not be happy.
Europe has a trade surplus, they aren't doing so well.
Australia has been running a deficit for ages. They have been doing splendidly.
Also, often a trade deficit is just a statistical artefact: if the Chinese ship a billion t-shirts to the US, and in return get a skyscraper in Manhattan, that skyscraper-for-t-shirts trade will show up as contributing to the trade-deficit, just because the skyscraper doesn't move.
(Some for them buying some silicone valley company instead of the skyscraper. And America is good at producing lots of those companies.)
You have it backwards. She was trying to differentiate his racist support from his "we're worried about our jobs" support. Read the text of her speech.
"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it.
[...]
But the other basket — and I know this because I see friends from all over America here — I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroine, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."
Imagine you're a poorly educated working class person who's struggling.
You hear both candidates speak. Hillary says "We need to have empathy for those people," a phrase that's clearly referring to you by the surrounding context. She's obviously not talking to you, she's talking about you.
Trump says "I LOVE THE POORLY EDUCATED!!! And I know you're struggling and I'm going to fix it!"
He's talking directly to you.
Who do you vote for?
Does it even matter what she says at that point about empathy? No. She clearly doesn't even consider the possibility that a poorly educated person who's leaning Trump would even be in the audience. Does "We need to understand you people and empathize with you" sound inclusive? If you're in Camp Hillary it might. If you're not in Camp Hillary, well, those words are pretty much an admission that the in-crowd doesn't relate to you at all, or consider you one of them.
And that's the complete arrogance and obliviousness that allowed the left to lose an election to an extremely weak opponent.
I feel like you're inventing a story here where one candidate talked to people but the other talked about them. It doesn't hold up. Not just beacuse none of your quotes were actually quotes. Nor just because Trump voters had a higher-than-average income.
"We need to have empathy for those people" because of "those people" is exclusive, but "We need to understand you people and empathize with you" is also exclusive. Is it the "you people"? Or should she have lied and said "I'm one of you". I don't know if it matters because she didn't say that anyway. Then the "I love the poorly educated", which is also a "[them]" is inclusive.
"She clearly doesn't even consider the possibility that a poorly educated person who's leaning Trump would even be in the audience."
She made that speech at a fundraiser. Why would she speak to someone who maybe was there isntead of the people that were? What did Trump say at his private fundraisers? Should we compare stump speeches?
Did your hypothetical voter hear Trumps speeches where he constantly mentions how rich he is, how much money he makes in real estate deals, and all the fancy stuff he does? How many golf courses did he talk about in a day? I don't see why it's arrogant to not believe in Trump as a populist. Or to see irony in the claim that one candidate better cares about, relates to, or understands the poorly educated when his party wants to limit social safety nets, unions, health care, and the ability of poor people and minorities to vote.
As to the left's obliviousness, our candidate get more votes.
There's no "story," this is a post-mortem. She lost, we get to figure out why. That takes a bit of humility.
My lasting impression here was that the DNC's goal was not to win the presidency, it was to get Hillary Clinton elected to the presidency. There's a difference, and in this case, it was a vital one. During the Democratic caucuses I watched a lot of people vote for Hillary because it was assumed "she has the best chance of beating Trump." But the numbers at the time didn't even bear it out, and here we are.
What bit the DNC in the ass in a big way last night was that they completely miscalculated the importance of a large portion of the electorate that Trump actively courted, nominated a candidate that had almost no chance of swaying these voters, and ignored and denigrated them for the entire campaign. Whoops. Calling this a 'blind spot' would probably be an understatement.
Michael Moore called this one months ago. I hope the lesson of this election is not lost on anyone.
>What bit the DNC in the ass in a big way last night was that they completely miscalculated the importance of a large portion of the electorate that Trump actively courted, nominated a candidate that had almost no chance of swaying these voters, and ignored and denigrated them for the entire campaign. Whoops. Calling this a 'blind spot' would probably be an understatement.
Yes to humility. I'm fine with the party doing some self-analysis and changing how they do things. I just don't think the math supports this narrative. Did Trump actually bring in new voters to his party? That was the story in the primary (and apparently now) but I don't think the data matched it then. It seems he did well with Republicans. Would any Democratic candidate have swayed rural white voters, or any white voters?
And suppose we take away the arguments about Trump's racist stuff. Say all these portion of voters really did vote because they had been ignored and are worried about their jobs and economic uncertainty. I don't think Trump's stated policies will help them. I think they're wrong to think trade policies and immigration are causing their problems. And if the story about this populist uprising is true, these don't seem to want a social safety net, expanded access to health care, environmental regulation, or unions, as much as they want a wall to keep out Mexicans. The DNC doesn't need to sway these voters. They're Republicans.
And finally, she got more votes. How terrible could Hillary have been if she got more votes? We need to keep this election in perspective. It was very very close. There are still a lot of people that want Democrats in office.
She called 50% of Trump's supporters racists, homophobes, etc. How is that not exactly what the quote is made out to be? If she had said "some of Trump's supporters" you'd be right.
You'd think by now politicians --- you have one job! --- would learn that this message always loses. Attack the candidate, never the candidate's supporters. Trump offers a corollary, which is simply "if you're attacking someone other than the candidate, just be super specific about who you're attacking".
The "deplorable" thing cost Clinton. The attacks on the Khan family don't seem to have cost Trump much at all.
I'll agree that she worded that poorly and was unkind. Even Clinton apologized for that part. " “I regret saying ‘half’ -- that was wrong." [1] That's one of the differences between the candidates.
In support of her defense of the statement: "to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half". That sounds very vague to me. She even referred to "you could put half" as "grossly generalistic".
Then in the rest of her statement she got to empathizing with the people that aren't voting because we have too many Muslims and brown people make me squeeamish.
If you say something like that and expect anyone to keep listening or reading after your first sentence, you have no business -- or future -- in politics.
Your statement does not provide support for their being a silent majority for Trump. But I hope people consider what you said when someone talks about how Hillary or the media or whatever is part of the corrupt "Establishment".
It doesn't matter whether there was a "silent majority" for Trump or anyone else because we don't attach any importance to a majority vote at the national level. Nor should we. If we did, three metropolitan areas in New York and California would dictate the outcomes of our Presidential elections.
But I hope people consider what you said when someone talks about how Hillary or the media or whatever is part of the corrupt "Establishment".
That, on the other hand, is no longer questionable.
Good thing the rules are agreed to before the competition. BTW, the popular vote hasn't been completely counted, and probably never will be. Absentee ballot, which generally favor Republicans, will not be counted in any of the states that didn't have a close margin of error(read: most of the red states). In a close election like this, you really have no ground complaining about popular vote.
It's interesting reading through comments and seeing "them" mentioned. A lot of it will be because HN has a lot of international posters, but descriptions of Clinton voters don't read like this.
Considering the majority in the house and senate, day 1 the ACA is going to get repealed - millions will lose their health coverage, and my employer's profitability is going to tank as a result as an increase of patients coming into the ER can't pay their medical bills and we end up sending them to collections before eventually writing it off.
Republicans already had a majority in the house and senate, and have tried to repeal the ACA many times. They still don't have a supermajority in the senate, though, so I expect Democrats will continue to filibuster any attempts to repeal.
They passed a reconciliation bill[1], which needed only a simple majority in both houses and is filibuster-proof. The only thing that stopped that bill from going through was a Presidential veto. The ACA is going to be repealed.
Before the ACA, no one would sell me health insurance. Several years ago, I had my gallbladder out. So whenever I'd try to buy health insurance, "pre-existing condition" would kick in, even though I'm perfectly healthy.
So, I'm scared now, to once again be a self-employed adult without access to medical care. At least I'm in pretty good health. I know a few people who rely on their health care who, if they end up getting kicked off of their insurance plans, may not live very long. That's scary to think about, too.
I'm in a similar boat. I'm a cancer survivor, in my early thirties, and run a technology business. Without government intervention, I can not buy health insurance.
Even if you want to remove the compassion for it, eliminating the ability obtain medical insurance is terrible for the economy. I waited for years to separate from my last employer until I was confident that I could obtain health insurance. There are a ton of risks when starting a new company and the last thing you want to think about is whether or not you can pay medical bills if something were to happen again.
Rather than working on my business, I now need to setup a meeting with the state's high-risk insurance pool to figure out whether they're finally going to eliminate the program and then compare that with the paltry list of plans left on ACA as well as what a broker can find me. To be clear, ACA has massive issues. That said, it meant that I could buy insurance, even if it wasn't the perfect insurance that I wanted.
What would you say to thousands of people with decent health whose premiums and deductibles have gone up and who are forced to keep paying it to avoid the penalty?
While it seems fair to subsidize the costs of your particular problem, does it also seem fair to ask of them to subsidize the costs associated with obesity and palliative care of the old?
These people do not have software developer salaries either. The income cut-off for being offered some sort of a discount on the plans is rather low, so it really eats into the budgets of their families.
Prior to ACA, people who were old or obese could still buy insurance. Prior to ACA, people like me who were cancer survivors could not, in any way shape or form, buy health insurance outside of government programs. If you are asking whether or not I believe it to be fair that premiums have gone up because in order to cover the uninsurable, absolutely.
And, to be clear, even now health insurance is not cheap for me. I did better in my business than I ever did before and I still budget for and spend 9% of my gross income on healthcare, which is split between premiums and my out of pocket max.
ACA is absolutely, positively not a perfect law. However, ACA has allowed me to start a business. ACA has given me the possibility of starting a family. I am not alone. If the cost of that is the requirement that I muster enough compassion to cover the costs associated with subsidizing the obese and old, then that is absolutely worth it.
I think it is fair to ask healthy people to subsidize health care for unhealthy people.
I think the best means of structuring society's relationship to medical care is to make it available to everyone within that society, spreading the costs across all parts of society.
That, to me, is the most sensible approach, even when some people pay more than they use, or some people use more than they pay for.
Pooled costs and guaranteed access to shared resources is one of the things that society is/does. Medical care doesn't seem different from roads, schools, police, the FCC, whatever.
Whether the ACA does a good job spreading the costs around or getting people access to medical care, that's a separate discussion. But whether it should at all, not a question for me. It should.
I feel for you. Working in the medical industry I feel the ACA is one of the most important (if not what many of us would have wanted) steps towards providing care to everyone we have taken, the fact that it's going to end up vanishing is going to have a huge impact - one that unfortunately is likely to only be felt years from when it happens.
Without the Medicaid expansion, they likely won't be able to afford any private insurance as well. The ultimate outcome is going to be uninsured people flooding the ER, who by law has to stabilize them. But maintenance drugs will be out of reach of many.
Repeal and replace. I'm sure Trump's solution will not leave you in the cold. It would be wreckless to repeal without ensuring people like you keep your insurance.
A few years ago I read an article in the online version of some magazine -- Fortune, maybe -- that was attempting to rebut the argument that the GOP opposed the ACA but had never offered a coherent counterproposal. The author listed maybe a dozen plans that had been put forth by various Republican legislators.
I commented on the piece that a dozen plans is no plan. The GOP needed, I argued, to settle on a single plan to go to the voters with and say, "Here, this is what we should do instead of the ACA." Nothing like that has ever happened.
Well, now they'll have their chance to repeal the ACA with or without a replacement in hand. I won't be surprised at all if they don't replace it with anything, and we'll be back to where we were. -- Which will really put a damper on people over 45 or so quitting their jobs to do startups.
> I'm sure Trump's solution will not leave you in the cold.
I hope you're right, but I don't know how you can possibly be sure.
The current insurance market is not a permanent thing. If you look at the ACA marketplace, the list of plans changes year by year and that's the same thing that happens on the private market. In that context, what does keep your insurance even mean? Yes, I highly doubt we'll get dropped from our insurance plans in the middle of the year, but those of us on the independent market almost always have to buy a new plan every year. As such, the question of whether or not we can obtain a new plan is extremely important.
At present, there are millions more people with health insurance in the USA than before Romneycare became the law of the land. Especially in the states that implemented the Medicaid expansion provisions.
The Medicaid expansion is a particular sore spot if the ACA gets repealed, a majority of our physicians are in California where Medi-Cal has had gobs of funding and covered an expanded population well before the ACA was implemented - but for those in states that did rely on the expansion funding I expect our collection rates are going to plummet as Medicaid patients continue to make up a large majority of those that utilize emergency department and urgent care facilities.
There's going to be a lot of people losing Medicaid if this happens that will become self-pay (aka, no money) patients. Not a good time to be in the billing industry.
They didn't necessarily lose their coverage, they just ended up with much worse coverage with much higher deductibles.
Those of us who have stuck with our pre-Obamacare plans are paying dearly for the privilege. That's OK, I understand that Obamacare was supposed to fail from day one, in order to pave the way for single-payer coverage.
But it's becoming increasingly apparent that we're going to get the first part without the second.
The checks and balances are a republican controlled congress (House and Senate). And a supreme court where republicans will be able to select a majority of the members. The only check and balance left is via a Democratic filibuster.
And even if that somehow happens, those scenes from his rallies are not going away. The videos of people cheering racist rhetoric, cheering the idea of an entire religion being banned from the country, the idea of not giving a shit that someone confessed to sexual assault, is not going away. If anything, it's going to flourish.
This is what I fear the most. The rise of alt-right rhetoric making it's way into the mainstream. I guess the pendulum had to swing away from talk of global unity and progress and towards isolationism at some point - I just hope it swings back the other way before it's too late.
You do realize when you're talking about "global unity" that almost the whole rest of the world is more racist and sexist than the US, right? I come from a Muslim country. Replace "Muslims" with "Jews" and the worst things said at a Trump rally would be socially acceptable where I am from.
That's a shame, though I doubt you could objectively quantify and compare the sort of racism and sexism here with that of another given nation except at a surface level.
You don't even need an objective measure. It's so deeply ingrained people don't even think about it. For example, Americans will refer to someone from another country by their nationality. "He's Canadian" or "he's German." In Bangladesh, everyone not from Bangladesh is "bideshi"--"foreigner."
And if you're "bideshi" you'll never be "Bangladeshi." A white person can live in Bangladesh their whole life and never be "from there." But at least they generally respect white people. Hang around an immigrant community somewhere like Toronto and get folks talking about black people or Jewish people. Ask a girl's parents about how they would feel about her marrying a black person. You won't get a more negative reaction anywhere in Alabama.
As to the issue of sexism--I don't think it even needs saying.
There are lots of ways to objectively quantify racism and sexism. Just off the top of my head:
- Are women/minorities legally allowed to vote?
- Do women/minorities vote at the same rates as majority men?
- Are women/minorities represented in office at the same rates as majority men?
- Are there any legal restrictions against women/minorities that don't apply to majority men like the right drive, the right to own property, rules around dress or appearance?
- Are women/minorities paid as well for their work as majority men?
- Is abortion legal?
- Do women/minorities have equal access to education as majority men?
- Is interracial marriage legal? How common is it?
- How integrated is housing? Do people of different races tend to live near each other?
I'm sure this list isn't exhaustive. As I said, just a start off the top of my head.
The same he always does: Blaming things on others. This is what worries me the most: Trump won't get anything done but blame it, yet again, on some minority. And, yet again, chances are people will believe him.
Maybe these people would rather be lied to by a con artist than to be made the punchline of every joke by every liberal blogger, pundit and late night host on a daily basis.
This election taught us that one of the parties is peddling very divisive rhetoric, and it's not the one you may think it is.
In my experience, those people aren't looking to Trump to "fix" their problems. As you said, in many cases those jobs simply aren't coming back.
The difference is that Trump said "I'll do everything I can to put things back together" (while not making any specific promises), while Clinton said "You're sexist and deplorable if you vote for that guy".
Trump recognized that the problems existed. He was the first presidential candidate to do even that.
