Boston Globe-Debuking Trump

Debunking the 2016 election ‘economic anxiety’ myth - The Boston Globe https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/04/25/debunking-election-e...
Opinion
MICHAEL A. COHEN
Debunking the 2016 election ‘economic anxiety’ myth
SCOTT OLSON/GETTY IMAGES

Then-candidate Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally on March 13, 2016, in Bloomington, Illinois.
By Michael A. Cohen APRIL 25, 2018
The 2016 presidential election is going to haunt us forever.
I’m not referring just to the fact that it made Donald Trump president of the United States. Earlier this week, the Republican National
Committee unveiled its new strategy for November’s midterm elections — and it features Hillary Clinton as “a central villain in attacks ads
against vulnerable Democrats nationwide.”
According to RNC spokesperson Rick Gorka, “We’re going to make them own her.”
If ever one needed more evidence that Republicans are animated, above all else, by resentment, anger, and hatred of Democrats, this strategy
should do the trick.
But as nice as it would be to move on from the dumpster fire of 2016, there are still lessons to be gleaned from that election that shape our
current politics — and none is more important than understanding why Donald Trump won.
After the 2016 election, one explanation regularly emerged — support for Trump was a reflection of economic anxiety among voters. Never
mind that Clinton won overwhelmingly among poor and working voters of color, or that post-election autopsies have found that cultural
displacement and resentment were driving factors in support for Trump — the theme of economic dislocation took on a life of its own.
According to a new study published in the “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences” this myth has once again been deflated.
The study’s lead researcher, Dr. Diana Mutz, looked at survey data from 2012 and 2016 and found what motivated white, Christian, and male
1 de 17 27-04-18 05:26
voters to support a dishonest, racist, misogynistic demagogue had little to do with economic concerns. The far bigger factor was “loss of
status.”
That loss was felt at both a domestic and foreign policy level. “White Americans’ declining numerical dominance in the United States, together
with the rising status of African-Americans and American insecurity about whether the United States is still the dominant global economic
superpower,” writes Mutz, “combined to prompt a classic defensive reaction among members of dominant groups.”
According to Mutz, white Americans felt “under siege by these engines of change.”
Mutz found little to no evidence that a decline in income, loss of a job, or concerns over a worsening “personal financial situation” drove voter
preference. Rising unemployment or a drop in manufacturing jobs in the area where someone lived wasn’t much of a factor either. In fact,
“living in an area with a high median income” was a far more important predictor of a vote for Trump. This is precisely the opposite of what
one might expect for an election allegedly decided by “economic anxiety.”
Mutz’s observations on trade are perhaps the most revelatory. After the election, Trump’s focus on allegedly terrible trade agreements that
had destroyed American manufacturing and sent jobs overseas was viewed by many as a key factor in his win. Trade was a concern for many
Trump voters, but not for the reasons one might expect.
Past political science research has found links between opposition to trade and “prejudicial attitudes toward domestic minorities” rather “than
the vulnerability of a person’s occupation or industry of employment.” Moreover, opposition to trade is often reflective of a larger fear, says
Dr. Mutz, of “others, including foreigners and businesses in countries that are racially different.”
This was the case with Trump voters who viewed trade agreements through the narrow prism of how they’d affect the status of America as a
dominant international power. When you combine that with fears about a loss of status vis-à-vis the growing numbers and prominence of
non-white Americans and larger cultural changes that reflect that demographic shift, 2016 looks less an election about the economy and more
one about racism, fear, and white privilege.
Many pundits (myself included) came to believe that Trump’s racism would doom his chances. The opposite occurred. It spearheaded his
victory. It’s small wonder that as president Trump has stuck to race-baiting and xenophobia on everything from immigration and terrorism to
protests at NFL games. The man might not understand anything about policy or how to be president, but he does appear to grasp that his
supporters share his cultural and racial resentments — and that the key to his continued political success is to keep fanning those flames.
The lesson for Democrats is that winning over Trump voters on economic issues may not be the most effective message in upcoming midterm
election. The better strategy is to activate the multi-racial coalition of blacks, Hispanics, white liberals, and suburban women who supported
Clinton in 2016 and who have become the engine of the so-called resistance. Of course, that also means that the racial resentments activated
by Trump will not be dissipated — and if the attacks on Clinton are any indication, will be further magnified. It’s a depressing reminder that as
much as we’d like to wish 2016 away, it will remain with us for some time to come.
Michael A. Cohen’s column appears regularly in the Globe. Follow him on Twitter @speechboy71.
117 Comments Oldest Newest Best
Hullbobby 04/25/18 10:54 AM
"If ever one needed more evidence that Republicans are animated, above all else, by resentment, anger and hatred of
democrats...." I'm not going to argue that point, but I think Michael should be honest and also state that the reverse is just
as true and that is what is wrong with our system today. Michael travels in hatred of anything to the right of a Clinton and
the republicans travel in hatred of anything to the left of Joe Biden. I wish we could have some more middle candidates be
success in our primary system, but it is just that, our primary system, that pulls both party to the fringe. I am not optimistic
going forward.
Topcat2468 04/25/18 11:19 AM
False Eqivalency by Hullbobby.... typical.
2 de 17 27-04-18 05:26
As if to make my point, I have more at this juncture I have more dislikes than likes for wanting both sides to
move away from the fringe edges of their parties.
Topcat2468 04/25/18 11:21 AM
Republicans have been goaded and cajoled to the radical right by conservative media including Faux News.
SAD!!! and dangerous to our country.
Good people hate Lying, Bullying, Demonizing and Cheating... all of which Trump does every day... Hull
just doesn't like the Truth.
Topcat2468 04/25/18 11:24 AM
Hullbooby is lying again. The dislikes have to do with the false equivalency and not the desire to move away
from fringe edges of both the left and the right which most people agree with. SAD!
Reubenhop 04/25/18 11:45 AM
Hullbobby says nothing about the scientific argument about threatened status that is at the center of this
article. Hr just makes another meaningless personal attack. Maybe he is too angry about the possibility that
loss of status motivates him to admit it might be a factor in his thinking.
CoffeeCoffeeCoffee 04/25/18 11:47 AM
Your dislikes are for spouting false equivalency nonsense. "It annoys the left" is now seen as a legitimate
basis for policy by the right; there is no equivalent among Democrats. And Republicans don't travel in
hatred of anything to the left of Joe Biden, they peddle hatred of anything to the left of Joe Arpaio. Why do
you think so many (conservative) Republicans are stepping down from Congress this year? If Paul Ryan
isn't considered a true enough conservative by his party, then what's the point of even trying to argue that
both sides are behaving similarly?
This comment has been blocked.
Hullbobby 04/25/18 12:05 PM
Wow, just look at the hatred for me because I said BOTH parties should be more moderate. I'm not
concerned about Topcat because he is a true hater and his rants are infamous. But to Reuben I have to ask
where I made this personal attack? I have not one name in my comment and yet you call it a "personal"
attack. I have many polite disagreements with some on the left here, but some people make that impossible.
Topcat is, of course one, but Reuben you can do better. Coffee, your hatred of anything republican just
helps to make my point. This is the first comment I have seen from you and it doesn't make for a promising
member of our group.
BDPopp 04/25/18 12:06 PM
Bobby, I disliked your post for suggesting that both sides are fringe groups driven by extremes and hatred.
This is another false equivalency.
3 de 17 27-04-18 05:26
nfcbtb 04/25/18 02:24 PM
Hullbobby, you seem to be confused about why people dislike your argument. A couple of experiments for
you:
- Watch MSNBC and Fox News. MSNBC goes after President Trump and his Cabinet -- national public
figures who are fair game. Fox News goes after any liberal who catches their attention. This demonstrates
right-wing love of "liberal tears" as an organizing principle, and disproves the idea that all liberals have
some hatred or contempt for conservatives outside coastal cities.
- Review the legislative record of George W. Bush against Barack Obama. Democrats worked with Bush on
reasonable bipartisan legislation (as well as post-9/11 national security legislation based on Bush lies).
Republicans did nothing but vote against legislation under Obama, including middle class tax and stimulus
legislation during the Great Recession. As Mitch McConnell famously stated, the Congressional Republican
goal was not to serve their constituents or help the American people -- it was to make Barack Obama a one-
term president.
Foogie 04/25/18 06:02 PM
I strongly agree that the primary system--particularly the primary calendar--pulls both party towards their
fringes. If we had single-day, instant-runoff primaries, we would see more moderate candidates with
broader appeal, and that would lead to less political polarization in our society.
But I strongly disagree that "the reverse is just as true," i.e., that Democrats are "animated, above all else,
by resentment, anger and hatred" of Republicans. To my knowledge, no Democrat has ever:
- said that the "number one priority" of a Democratic Congressional majority is to make the sitting
Republican President a "one-term President"
- refused to even hold a hearing on a nomination by a Republican President because it was the last year of
his term
- questioned a Republican President's citizenship, birthplace, religion, etc.
- shouted "You lie!" during a Republican President's State of the Union
- elected to Congress members of their "fringe wing" groups such as Antifa (akin to the Tea Party)
- allowed participants at official events to waive the flag of violent extremist racist "fring wing" groups (like
the Confederate flag)
- shut down the government over a social issue (like Planned Parenthood funding)
- nominated a candidate for President who, among many, many other things: said a POW wasn't a war hero
because he was captured, called Mexicans racists, said "who would vote for that face?" about a female
candidate, attacked a Gold Star family, and eats pizza with a fork and knife.
It's not both sides to blame. It's one side to blame 80% and the other like 20%, most of which is MSNBC.
user_3496880 04/26/18 06:21 AM
Where is Cullen?
4 de 17 27-04-18 05:26
JacobOfEarl 04/26/18 12:06 PM
Lying, Bullying, Demonizing and Cheating

----------------------------------
Lying - bullets and sniper fire coming from all directions

Bullying - admonishing women that they voted against their own interests
Demonizing - basked of deplorables
Cheating - given town hall questions in advance by Donna Brazile and rigging the primaries against Sanders
Trump? Nope. Hillary.
Once again, topscat shows his incredibly ugly and downright stupid partisan feathers.
JoE
begolfing 04/26/18 12:09 PM
well said hull. I wonder if someone like Bill Clinton could even win the nomination today
But to Reuben I have to ask where I made this personal attack?

--------------------
Rube is a bit more polished and less of a screeching fool than topscat, but don't mistake his slightly more
spit for sophistication. Seriously, he's incredibly bereft of substance. A reflexive, know-it-all liberal.
So you're basically responding to topscat by responding to Rube. Very little difference.
JoE
Hide Replies
bos-guy22 04/25/18 11:06 AM
I thought Trump won because he colluded with the Russians to steal an election?
I thought Trump won because women were too scared of their husbands to vote for Hillary?
Topcat2468 04/25/18 11:26 AM
Yawn!!!!
bos-guy22 04/25/18 11:42 AM
Funny topcat, you call everyone you don't agree with a troll....yet you troll all day on this site. Never once do
you actually add to a conversation, just multiple posts calling others names. Sad!
5 de 17 27-04-18 05:26
Bos, we need to ignore that so-called person, I fall into a reply sometimes and I always need a shower
afterwards.
BDPopp 04/25/18 12:09 PM
The Russians used social media to spread lies in order to fan the flames of prejudice and hatred that
motivated Trump voters.
Martha1 04/25/18 03:56 PM
A lot of factors played into the Trump win: racism (outright), fear of losing status (whites), Russian
interference and, I think, at the very end, Comey's announcement about the e-mails (Hillary) were a final
fatal blow.
Suares23 04/26/18 09:47 AM
Let Democrats keep believing it was everything but what it was; the single most corrupt, entitled candidate
in history.
Democrats can't solve a problem they refuse to acknowledge.
daisy1 04/26/18 10:45 AM
squares, Clinton surpasses Trump in nearly every way, but even I, an Unenrolled voter, will concede she
does not hold a candle to Trump when it comes to lying and corruption and it seems no one else will either.
Hide Replies
SummerDogMom 04/25/18 11:06 AM
"The lesson for Democrats is that winning over Trump voters on economic issues may not be the most effective message in
upcoming midterm election. The better strategy is to activate the multi-racial coalition of blacks, Hispanics, white liberals,
and suburban women who supported Clinton in 2016 and who have become the engine of the so-called resistance." The
Democrats need to walk away from the notion that anything they say is going to "win over" Trump voters. The real strategy
to winning in 2018, 2020, and beyond is to focus intensely on GOTV operations. The only way to win is to make sure that
more Democratic voters than Republican voters get to the polls every year.
Wasn't that your strategy in 2016? I submit the following, GET A BETTER CANDIDATE and stop
pandering to "groups" of Americans and try to appeal to ALL Americans. Stop the Balkanization of our
nation with your "coalitions" of disparate groups.
6 de 17 27-04-18 05:26
Topcat2468 04/25/18 11:29 AM
Extreme conservative republicans are not going to compromise and be reasonable... that includes
immigration and other policies. Republican Obstructionism at the highest levels with McConnell, Ryan and
Trump continues.
Said Topcat, the master of compromise. Oops, sorry Overtrick, I seem to stolen your bit.
BDPopp 04/25/18 12:12 PM
I'm coming to think that "get a better candidate" is coded speech for get an old, white male who is racist,
misogynist and xenophobic, and hasn't been slandered for decades.
daisy1 04/26/18 11:02 AM
Hullbobby, I do not exempt your failings for voting in Trump with the pitiful excuse you had no other
choice. Clinton had flaws, but she remains far superior candidate and frankly, Trump was the bottom of the
pathetic GOP barrel of 16 candidates. I don't know if your a misogynist, but I know many Clinton haters
who would not vote for her, are. I know she would have been President if not for Ted Kennedy and Oprah
and I know the constant slander and inuendo that originated and grew from the Tea Party wave coupled
with the perversions of manipulated news and Comey's unprecedented actions and timing is the only
reason she's not POTUS now. Trump is nothing but a successful con and anomaly at a period in time that
will be judged harshly for years to come.
Hide Replies
MNMoore 04/25/18 11:10 AM
This study fails to tease out the distinction between Trump GOP primary supporters and the general election voters.
Regular GOP voters skew wealthier in any election.
I also don't see how you can talk about "status" insecurity without touching on income and wealth. To suggest that the
Twenty-First Century mass White downward mobility had no bearing on 2016 is not credible. This study conveniently
supports the views of the Clinton controlled DNC who are determined to come up with a demonic explanation for their loss
and beat back the Sanders wing.
Good points Moore.
7 de 17 27-04-18 05:26
WilliamSlim1944 04/25/18 11:30 AM
This study conveniently supports the views of the Clinton controlled DNC who are determined to come up
with a demonic explanation for their loss and beat back the Sanders wing.
____________________________
Not just "convenient" but pre-determined.
JeffP98 04/25/18 11:33 AM
There is no mass "white" downward mobility but rather a steady increase in income and wealth inequality
negatively impacting all middle and working class people. The "trump voters," as opposed to the typical
Republican voters who voted for him just because he was the candidate, have clearly decided that the
emotional security they get from being part of the dominant ethnic group is more important than
recognizing the economic interests they share with middle and working class people of all races.
Topcat2468 04/25/18 11:34 AM
It not a matter of whether income and wealth is a factor... it is part of a bigger picture and not separate from
it.
BrianC2 04/25/18 12:26 PM
Excellent post JeffP98, you nailed it. It's amazing to see so many cut off their nose to spite their face.
Excellent post JeffP98, you nailed it. It's amazing to see so many cut off their nose to spite their face.
-----------------
I find your avatar offensive and racist. Please remove it.
JoE
Hide Replies
bustinchops 04/25/18 11:16 AM
It's not all racism, though, the sexism also appeals to Trump's base.
pdrom 04/25/18 11:20 AM
I take it then, that if Nikki Haley is the Republican nominee for POTUS in 2020, she can count on your
vote?
8 de 17 27-04-18 05:26
bos-guy22 04/25/18 11:45 AM
can you explain how that is false logic? If trump supporters are sexists, wouldn't they refuse to vote for
Haley?
Ignore the Cat, he is an idiot, a hater and a loser.
AccountabilitySeeker 04/25/18 01:00 PM
Top must be running low on rubles. He or she is very active today.
pdrom 04/25/18 02:02 PM
That's right, Bobby. Arguing with TC is like wrestling in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty but the pig
will enjoy it.
That's right, Bobby. Arguing with TC is like wrestling in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty but the pig
will enjoy it.
------------------
Please. Ignore topscat. Do not feed the trolls lest they mistaken you as a source of food. Keep them under
the bridge where they belong.
JoE
Hide Replies
MNMoore 04/25/18 11:22 AM
"Reluctant" Trump voters are swayed by economics. These are important swing voters.
-- https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-economy-is-keeping-reluctant-trump-voters-with-him/
MNMoore 04/25/18 11:26 AM
Education was the key indicator in 2016. Less educated people, regardless of their current status, are facing dimmer
prospects than the educated. You can buy 15 home in Cleveland for the price of a Boston home.
-- http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/15/educational-divide-in-vote-preferences-on-track-to-be-wider-than-
in-recent-elections/
WilliamSlim1944 04/25/18 11:27 AM
The study’s lead researcher, Dr. Diana Mutz, looked at survey data from 2012 and 2016 and found what motivated white,
Christian, and male voters to support a dishonest, racist, misogynistic demagogue had little to do with economic concerns.
The far bigger factor was “loss of status.”
9 de 17 27-04-18 05:26
________________________
With highly-charged labels and epithets such as these it is hard to accept that Mutz came into this "study" with a
dispassionate hypothesis-testing approach. Much more likely that the Mutz report is just a Liberal ideologue position paper.
Topcat2468 04/25/18 11:41 AM
And the economic part of it still exists and is a factor... just not the prime motivator.
soxgrrrl 04/25/18 12:41 PM
I think those were Cohen's labels, not the researcher's.
Linda Lee 04/25/18 02:42 PM
“Loss of status” are the words used by the author of the study. Cohen provides a link to it if you would like
to read it.
tsynchronous 04/26/18 06:29 AM
Lots of things in the paper - Cohen just cherry picks his narrative. To get this correct reason you would have
to poll based on the Electoral College.
here is another tidbit.
" However, by 2016, the distance between the Democratic placement and that of the average American
became more than twice the distance between the Republican candidate and the average American. In
other words, the Democratic position on trade became far less tenable for the average American than the
Republican position. For perceptions of China as a threat, the Republican candidates’ positions remained
the same distance from the average American, but the Democratic position became increasingly distant
from the average American."
Hide Replies
tirq 04/25/18 11:29 AM
Why are the Republicans so hung on on Hillary? She's not even in office. And they're running attack ads against her? Makes
no sense, they must think their base is really that dumb.
Linda Lee 04/25/18 11:48 AM
Misogyny helps drive their insecure white, male voters to the polls. Apparently, Hillary is even more
“potent” than Pelosi, though she too will make a showing in their appeals to the white, male voters who are
afraid of the Other and now form the base of the Republican Party.
Therion_256 04/25/18 11:49 AM
Even though I voted for Hillary and wished that she had won, I don't want to see her run again. She has too
much baggage, even if there's shoddy evidence to some of it. She'd be too much of a liability on the
10 de 17 27-04-18 05:26
Democratic party and may ensure another Republican victory, which none of us needs right now.
Linda Lee 04/25/18 11:53 AM
She isn’t running again. The GOP is just running ads about her to stir up their angry white male voters.
PL 04/25/18 11:53 AM
Because she make white, male voters less secure about their status.
Linda and PL, were the democrats misogynists when they voted for Obama over Hilary or is only
republicans that vote by sex? Hoist on your own petard.
Linda Lee 04/25/18 12:33 PM
I thought that misogyny played a role in the 2008 primary. It was also a repetition of American history.
Black males received suffrage before women (women were told that it was too much to do both at once).
Because of the egregious 1876 election, in which the winner of the popular vote was denied the White
House when two Southern states flipped their electoral votes in return for federal troops leaving the South,
black men effectively lost the right to vote (unless they lived in the North) for almost a century and women
had to wait until 1920. In 2016, thanks to a cadre of men—Comey, McCabe, Putin—the woman was denied
the presidency. White alpha males rule. But I am not hoist on my own petard.
BadgerFromNH 04/25/18 07:23 PM
Understanding the voters reasons in detail is good. But it came as no surprise to me what happened. At the
same time HRC refused to acknowledge the issues that motivated passionate democrats, continued to be
Wall Street's progressive mouthpiece, and de-energized the democratic base, Trump tapped into a
conservative sub-section of the base and completely lit them up. It was really an election of sub-
populations, a couple of dems stay home, a couple of racists go to the polls, couple of voters are dissuaded
by Putin, and Trump wins via the electoral college. Its like baseball, if your team is hot going into October,
keep the hits coming. Trump was swinging for the fences, HRC made me wish I wasn't a Red Sox fan.
daisy1 04/26/18 11:07 AM
It's a false argument to justify their horrible choice.
Misogyny helps drive their insecure white, male voters

-----------------
Many white women hate her as well. But we all know that blows your narrative to smithereens. She is the
most hated candidate in history. Even voters in these threads admitted to holding their noses when voting
for her.
She is a despicable, nasty, disingenuous, fraud of a person. Male or female. You could change her name to
Henry. She'd still be hated.
But you just keep smoking your ignorance bong. And you'll get four more years of DT. But you'll still be
11 de 17 27-04-18 05:26
blaming the angry white male. Pathetic.
JoE
Hide Replies
Concord63 04/25/18 11:37 AM
Americans are imagination voters. They vote based on images placed in their imaginations by political media campaigns
and political strategies. They don't vote by numbers, results, or facts. They vote based on false primal images. They see the
damage climate change is doing to our planet and guns are doing to our society and they elect a can artist tells them climate
change isn't real and our society needs more guns.
Linda Lee 04/25/18 11:50 AM
More like a can’t artist. Yes, we can’t!
( I love typos. Yes, I understand you meant “con artist.”)
user_3965517 04/25/18 11:38 AM
It was a perfect storm of many factors, for sure. But, Michael, why don't you include Mysogony? I think this is an obvious
factor as well, amongst a large swath of his voters. And using Hillary in ads supports that notion.
So were the democrats misogynist when they voted for Obama over Hilary? Think about it and get back to
us.
Linda Lee 04/25/18 12:45 PM
To repeat: there was misogyny in the 2008 primary. I remember Sheila Jackson Lee quoting Sojourner
Truth, “Am I not a woman?” at a conference where she felt it necessary to “defend” her endorsement of
Clinton. Good old Maxine Waters never blinked. No one was going to tell her who she had to support in
2008. Hillary it was in both 2008 and 2016.
Linda Lee 04/25/18 12:47 PM
I hope your hip replacement in June will take the edge off, Bobby. When the pain subsides, you might even
learn how to spell Hillary.
user_3965517 04/25/18 01:51 PM
Yes, HullBobby. I'd say there was misogyny amongst the Dems as well who didn't feel comfortable voting
for a woman over a man. PLUS, at that time Hillary was not yet a secretary of state. Obama was a pretty
strong candidate in terms of his intellect, his articulate elegance of speech, his charm. It can be argued that
Hillary was not as strong as he in those areas. But yes, I would not argue against a certain element of our
society that is not yet able to accept women in positions of power, and that bias is bipartisan, (and
interestingly, exists amonsgst both men and women (although moreso amongst older women.) By the way,
12 de 17 27-04-18 05:26
these are opinions based on the results sociological research studies. (And thank you for not rubbing in my
typo.)
But, Michael, why don't you include Mysogony?

----------------------
Why didn't democrats vote for Carly Fiorina? Very successful female. No baggage like Clinton. Female as
far as I know?
Oh, you didn't agree with her politics. Wait, isn't that enough for Trump voters? They just didn't agree with
Hillary's politics? Just like liberals didn't agree with Carly's?
Or are dems who didn't vote for Carly misogynists as well?
JoE
Hide Replies
general-washington 04/25/18 11:49 AM
This is just a repulsive attempt to justify the "deplorables" comment and the elite-focused status quo. To wit, the left
assumes that pretty much every agitator for change, no matter how repugnant or violent, is automatically motivated by
economic distress. For example, POTUS Obama and his admirers refusal to call terrorists "Islamic." Such people are not
motivated by ideology or religion, they are economically stressed to the breaking point. But lo and behold, that does not
apply white folks who voted for Trump, or against Clinton. No they are loathsome creatures out to grab and hold nasty
racist power.
The disenfranchised in this country really are disenfranchised. Whether they are black or white or green with purple polka
dots. Much as it soothes the souls of the powerful, the election of Trump is a true indication of a massive, and honest,
economic and political divide in the country, not some revelation of the inner demons of those who you prefer to ignore or
deride.
I mean, sheesh! A huge number of Trump voters voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012.
Topcat2468 04/25/18 12:07 PM
No, not ignore or divide but to put into perspective....
Topcat2468 04/25/18 12:09 PM
Truth is important. Fear of losing your identity and property and loss of status as a result is not as abstract
as you seem to think.
Show More Replies (2)
PL 04/25/18 11:56 AM
If you accept "loss of status" as a reason for Trump's victory (and it's as good as anything else I've read), then the slogan
"Make America Great Again" was a real winner. I thought America was great in 2016, and 2015, and 2014, and so forth.
13 de 17 27-04-18 05:26
But did Michelle Obama think America was great prior to 2008?
PL 04/25/18 12:21 PM
Yes, she did. It went unreported on Fox News, so that's why you missed it.
LeftOut 04/25/18 12:32 PM
Michael: when you point out the coalition, you do get into the identity politics that so many are tired of hearing, even if true.
Between black presidents, gay marriage, energy conservation, and transgender military, the socially isolated were feeling
threatened. They fought back. A woman presidential candidate who was evasive with the truth was not winning them over.
A blunt and positive message, even from a liar like Trump, did.
I don't know why the "other" scares so many people. I am not sure what in our genetic makeup makes us so tribal. The
emotional appeal of Trump is apparent, although anyone could recognized that his claims and promises were phony. Some
of the electorate raised a giant middle finger to the Clintons and the Bushes, to multiculturalism, and to change. They refuse
to realize that you can't go back to the days when the mill hired kids with no experience and they worked their lives there,
went to church every Sunday and raised their kids in town. And regular politicians didn't seem to offer any solutions. So
they were duped by the empty promises of Trump, who proceeded to collaborate with Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell to
make sure that the GOP donor class got their money's worth for their "political contact expenses" in tax cuts.
Linda Lee 04/25/18 12:51 PM
It was white identity politics that helped Trump. It is apparently here to stay. The Democrats are wise to
activate their base. It isn’t a matter of convincing Trump voters; rather, it is a matter of outnumbering them
in enough states to reach 270 electoral votes.
Linda Lee 04/25/18 12:56 PM
To be precise, it is white, phallogocentric politics that has come roaring back. Haven’t used that descriptor
in a long while. I was hoping I might file it away.
DemsLost 04/25/18 12:54 PM
The 2016 presidential election is going to haunt us forever.

##############
2016 was by far THE greatest election ever! The fact that bitter liberals are still haunted by the results makes 2016 all that
much sweeter!
14 de 17 27-04-18 05:26
JeffP98 04/25/18 01:21 PM
Since it seems ever more apparent that white nationalism was a major factor in the election, and now at
least co-equal to tax cuts at the core of the Republican platform, you probably won't be happy for very long.
Much like climate change, demographic change is real and going forward it will be harder and harder to win
presidential elections with a virtually all-white voter base.
DemsLost 04/25/18 01:40 PM
I would love to see Condoleeza Rice enter the 2020 Presidential election! I would vote for her in a
heartbeat!
Would you? If not, methinks you might be the racist and misogynist that you accuse Trump voters of being.
meatbone9 04/25/18 01:15 PM
The Democrats put up a poor candidate, and abandoned the people that put them in power. The republicans didn't win the
election, the Democrats lost it. If the plan is to double down, maybe an independent can squeeze in there HAHHAHA.
peristroika 04/25/18 02:37 PM
Hillary lost the Electoral College, not the general election, and she "lost" the EC because Trump and the GOP lied about her
with the help of Fox "News" and Hate-Talk radio and all the other rightwing demagogues that have access to the media.
Trump also had the help of Vladimir Putin, who fears and hates Hillary, because she would have kept him in his place, and
protected America first, and not waffled like Putin's puppet, Donald Trump has.
And finally Hillary is not in the WH, because there are a lot of people, who thought Trump was going to MAGA or at the
least make their lives better.
How's that "Tax cut for the rich" working for you working stiffs?
What are you going to do when Trump & the GOP wreck the healthcare system or make it unaffordable for working stiffs?
And meanwhile, Trump and his corrupt cabinet spend taxpayer dollars on fancy, luxury and unnecessary trips,, frequent
golf trips, and Trump's family sucks up Secret Service dollars, especially when they leave the country for family business
trips!
How's that "Tax cut for the rich" working for you working stiffs?
-------------------------------
So you're on the "crumbs" bandwagon as well as that hippie loser Pelosi? Well, my bonus check was the
biggest it's ever been and my take-home pay is also higher. Both goods things, ya know why? Cuz I can by
more stuff. You know that little bugaboo about consumer spending and how it drives our economy. I take
home more. I can spend more. Should I slow that down for you?
I
make
more.
So
I
can
spend
more.
Get it? If you had an actual job, you would get it. Time to move out of mom's basement.
15 de 17 27-04-18 05:26
JoE
buy...typing too fast even though I promised I'd slow down so идиот could understand me.
идиот is idiot in Russian.
JoE
MNMoore 04/25/18 05:22 PM
The Dems are not going to get the Obama voters who voted for Trump back by calling them names. There was also a large
percent of Obama voters who failed to vote at all.
--https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/upshot/the-obama-trump-voters-are-real-heres-what-they-think.html
In my job, I shadow cable technicians who enter homes of private citizens to install cable boxes and home
security. The vast majority of homes I've entered in the cities I've visited are African American homes.
100% of those homes had pictures of Obama hung on the walls. 100%. Not 99%. He was revered by the
black community.
Whenever I was in these homes, there were zero pictures of Hillary or the first black president, Bill Clinton.
None. Zero. Many of these homes were in lower income areas. There was an absolutely discernible sense
that Hillary resonated with none of these folks. She was merely a democrat just like Obama. My guess is
most of these folks stayed home on election night. Hillary did nothing to court them. She was a rich, white,
Wall Street-driven candidate leagues divided from Obama.
JoE
ROLtheWolf 04/26/18 04:50 AM
We already knew that racism (or at least callous attitudes to casual racism) motivated well-to-do whites to vote for Dump.
The real news story should be about why the natural left-leaning independents stayed home or voted for Jill Stein or even
Gary Johnson:
Hillary and the DNC completely blew the trust of the American voters by colluding during the primary - against the DNC's
own rules!! They didn't trust democracy, and got burned when the voters didn't trust them.
100,000 voters turned away in Brooklyn!
tsynchronous 04/26/18 06:24 AM
Cohen yelling squirrel again. It's very simple why Clinton lost - Clinton is a poor politician and her campaign was an act of
political malpractice. Running up vote tallies in Texas and California - and ignoring the upper Midwest - WTF.
16 de 17 27-04-18 05:26
MNMoore 04/26/18 06:53 AM
Texas?
begolfing 04/26/18 12:22 PM
“What difference at this point does it make?"
Funny the employment news is not on the fron t page.
begolfing 04/26/18 12:33 PM
?if this is the case, how does the dem platform come close to trying to appeal to these people
begolfing 04/26/18 12:41 PM
The party's ongoing questionable judgment aside, what this is really all about is a massive case of “It’s not us, it’s you and
the Russians.” This entire year-and-a-half has been a monumental temper tantrum from the political left and many in the
mainstream media, looking for any excuse as to why they lost a presidential election they shouldn’t have lost.
They are convinced that surely the American people want more government, higher taxes, guns confiscated, Trump
removed from office, massive policy changes based on climate change, transgender rights, abortion on demand, open
borders and amnesty for all. Surely the American people wanted all of this — except those bad Russians, with their $832
Facebook ad buys in Michigan and $300 Facebook ad buys in Pennsylvania that got dozens of clicks, completely changed
the election results.
http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/384983-democratic-party-goes-further-and-further-left-in-its-major-flirtation-with
Seriously, I think the best strategy is to let these losers keep blaming the Russians and the other useless
excuses bilging from Hillary.
All the way to 2020. Let the chumps like Cohen and topscat and Rube and lindalee keep blaming angry
white males. It's the best strategy for four more years of the GOP in the WH we could possibly come up
with. And at zero cost.
JoE
Please log in to comment.
© 2018 Boston Globe Media Partners, LLC
17 de 17 27-04-18 05:26

Boston Globe-Debuking Trump

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Boston Globe-Debuking Trump

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Debunking the 2016 election ‘economic anxiety’ myth - The Boston Globe https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/04/25/debunking-election-e...

Debunking the 2016 election ‘economic anxiety’ myth

SCOTT OLSON/GETTY IMAGES

By Michael A. Cohen APRIL 25, 2018

The 2016 presidential election is going to haunt us forever.

Hullbobby 04/25/18 10:54 AM

Topcat2468 04/25/18 11:19 AM

False Eqivalency by Hullbobby.... typical.

Hullbobby 04/25/18 11:19 AM

Topcat2468 04/25/18 11:21 AM

Topcat2468 04/25/18 11:24 AM

Reubenhop 04/25/18 11:45 AM

CoffeeCoffeeCoffee 04/25/18 11:47 AM

This comment has been blocked.

Hullbobby 04/25/18 12:05 PM

BDPopp 04/25/18 12:06 PM

This comment has been blocked.

nfcbtb 04/25/18 02:24 PM

Foogie 04/25/18 06:02 PM

- questioned a Republican President's citizenship, birthplace, religion, etc.

- shouted "You lie!" during a Republican President's State of the Union

user_3496880 04/26/18 06:21 AM

JacobOfEarl 04/26/18 12:06 PM

Lying, Bullying, Demonizing and Cheating

Lying - bullets and sniper fire coming from all directions

Trump? Nope. Hillary.

begolﬁng 04/26/18 12:09 PM

JacobOfEarl 04/26/18 12:55 PM

But to Reuben I have to ask where I made this personal attack?

So you're basically responding to topscat by responding to Rube. Very little difference.

bos-guy22 04/25/18 11:06 AM

This comment has been blocked.

Topcat2468 04/25/18 11:26 AM

bos-guy22 04/25/18 11:42 AM

This comment has been blocked.

This comment has been blocked.

Hullbobby 04/25/18 12:06 PM

BDPopp 04/25/18 12:09 PM

This comment has been blocked.

Martha1 04/25/18 03:56 PM

Suares23 04/26/18 09:47 AM

daisy1 04/26/18 10:45 AM

SummerDogMom 04/25/18 11:06 AM

Hullbobby 04/25/18 11:17 AM

Topcat2468 04/25/18 11:29 AM

Hullbobby 04/25/18 12:07 PM

BDPopp 04/25/18 12:12 PM

This comment has been blocked.

daisy1 04/26/18 11:02 AM

MNMoore 04/25/18 11:10 AM

Hullbobby 04/25/18 11:18 AM

Good points Moore.

WilliamSlim1944 04/25/18 11:30 AM

Not just "convenient" but pre-determined.

JeﬀP98 04/25/18 11:33 AM

Topcat2468 04/25/18 11:34 AM

BrianC2 04/25/18 12:26 PM

JacobOfEarl 04/26/18 12:57 PM

I find your avatar offensive and racist. Please remove it.

This comment has been blocked.

bustinchops 04/25/18 11:16 AM

pdrom 04/25/18 11:20 AM

This comment has been blocked.

bos-guy22 04/25/18 11:45 AM