Blame Trump’s Victory on College-Educated Whites, Not the Working Class - Polidicks

[URL="https://newrepublic.com/article/138754/blame-trumps-victory-college-educated-whites-not-working-class"]Source[/URL] [QUOTE]The failure to engage the white working class has been described as a grave tactical error, and that may well be true, given the slim margin of victory in swing states. But the media’s obsessive focus on this voting bloc would leave you to believe that Trump’s voters largely live in areas hit by the decline in manufacturing, are suffering from economic anxiety, and turned out last Tuesday to voice their disdain for smug urban elitists. But this narrative paints a misleading picture of the typical Trump voter, and by doing so, lets off the hook an entire class of voters who are at least as responsible for Trump’s victory: middle-class and wealthy suburban whites, who also came out in droves for Trump and who make up a larger part of his coalition.[/QUOTE] So I guess this election wasn't actually a victory against the elite.

Ah yes, it's all their fault that Hillary was a terrible candidate and they didn't want to vote for her.

[QUOTE]The average Trump voter is not poorly educated or unemployed, nor does he live in a rural area. Exit polls last week, while not definitive, reveal that both college-educated white men and college educated white women voted for Trump by much higher than expected margins.[/QUOTE] Sounds about right, most of our Students For Trump club consists of white STEM and Social Science students. They feel our club gave them a way to speak out about actual problems for white people in a very liberal and diverse campus that focuses on problems among minority groups. Even though our club started this semester I believe that white alumni probably felt the same need but didn't have the chance to voice themselves in college.

Yeah it's their fault she didn't give anyone an actual reason to vote for her. It's their fault the campaign itself made a mountain of mis-steps.

The source reads like a blog/editorial. The guy is calling college educated whites deplorable at the end of it. Sounds like somebody still doesn't want to acknowledge that their candidate might not have been a great choice and instead decides to attack anyone else. And I can understand why college educated whites voted for him. It was because Obamacare ruined their great insurance policies by taxing "Cadillac plans" and creating expensive, but woefully poor coverage plans for the rest of the people with garbage co-pay stipulations. But hey, everyone has insurance now, right?

[QUOTE=Lone_Star94;51383718]The source reads like a blog/editorial. The guy is calling college educated whites deplorable at the end of it. Sounds like somebody still doesn't want to acknowledge that their candidate might not have been a great choice and instead decides to attack anyone else. And I can understand why college educated whites voted for him. It was because Obamacare ruined their great insurance policies by taxing "Cadillac plans" and creating expensive, but woefully poor coverage plans for the rest of the people with garbage co-pay stipulations. But hey, everyone has insurance now, right?[/QUOTE] Fair enough but The New Republic is well respected and the article gives a lot of sources for it's claims. I feel like Clinton was the best candidate that this election had. It probably doesn't feel this way because Donald Trump just won a huge upset but wait a year, Trump's gonna be a trainwreck.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51383734]Fair enough but The New Republic is well respected and the article gives a lot of sources for it's claims. [/QUOTE] The article was going pretty steady, even informative, until the last paragraph. After that, I can't take the guy seriously. He really should have just left the information there for the reader to draw their own conclusions rather than giving his world view on why the college educated whites screwed Hillary over.

[QUOTE=download;51383681]Ah yes, it's all their fault that Hillary was a terrible candidate and they didn't want to vote for her.[/QUOTE] We'll just vote for climate change and wealth inequality instead. Take that Dumbocrats!

:snip:

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51383766]We'll just vote for climate change and wealth inequality instead. Take that Dumbocrats![/QUOTE] How can you say that with a straight face? Wealth inequality is higher under Obama than it has been at any time is recorded US history.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51383774]How can you say that with a straight face? Wealth inequality is higher under Obama than it has been at any time is recorded US history.[/QUOTE] That's not really Obama's fault, inequality has been building for decades. Maybe if Republicans had actually worked with him he could have done something about it!

[QUOTE=sgman91;51383774]How can you say that with a straight face? Wealth inequality is higher under Obama than it has been at any time is recorded US history.[/QUOTE] And the solution is to lower taxes on the rich? How can you agree with that with a straight face?

As mentioned before, the larger problem was who the democrats ultimately chose as their nominee. You can target voting sub-groups all you want, but when you have Hillary only getting 1% more of the women's vote compared to Obama's 2012 votes against Trump, there is a bigger problem at hand. Trump still got more minority votes than any other republican in history and some democrats who voted for Obama switched over to him, plain and simple. [url]http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html[/url] Hell, Clinton got 10% more of the white college graduate vote compared to 2012, so I don't even know how to feel about this article's main issue and credibility.

Let's be honest. The reason Clinton didn't is because she's uncharismatic and out of touch. I voted for her because I don't like Trump, but U definitely don't like her either. I just wanted Democratic policy's.

[QUOTE=omarfr;51383906]Let's be honest. The reason Clinton didn't is because she's uncharismatic and out of touch. I voted for her because I don't like Trump, but U definitely don't like her either. I just wanted Democratic policy's.[/QUOTE] Well that's the point, maybe put up Joe Biden and then we got a clearer winner. Hillary Clinton was one of the only possible people who could lose to Trump.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51383778]That's not really Obama's fault, inequality has been building for decades. Maybe if Republicans had actually worked with him he could have done something about it![/QUOTE] The point being that it's just silly to say that voting for Clinton would have been any better for wealth inequality. based on the evidence, it would have risen just as fast, if not faster, under her as it has been for decades. [editline]16th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51383781]And the solution is to lower taxes on the rich? How can you agree with that with a straight face?[/QUOTE] Obama raised taxes on the rich by letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthy and it didn't seem to have any effect. There's not nearly as much of a direct connection to taxes that you seem to think there is.

Russians, fucking white males, millennials, FBI, racist, KKK... all of them got blamed for Trump victory. Who's next?

[QUOTE=Durandal;51383707]Yeah it's their fault she didn't give anyone an actual reason to vote for her. It's their fault the campaign itself made a mountain of mis-steps.[/QUOTE] I don't know man, when she said "pokemon go to the polls" I thought she really had it for a moment

[QUOTE=DoktorAkcel;51384194]Russians, fucking white males, millennials, FBI, racist, KKK... all of them got blamed for Trump victory. Who's next?[/QUOTE] I don't like how they use the word [I]blame[/I] like its problematic that white people or any group against Clinton are voting in elections Citizens going out to vote are not the problem. Citizens [I][B]not[/B][/I] voting creates issues.

I'd like to see those exit polls, I thought it was an even split down the middle for college people?

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51384290]I'd like to see those exit polls, I thought it was an even split down the middle for college people?[/QUOTE] Michigan still being counted, thanks Ted Nugent. Probably available after christmas

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51383781]And the solution is to lower taxes on the rich? How can you agree with that with a straight face?[/QUOTE] increasing taxes on the rich is hilariously ineffective unless you aggressively pursue tax evasion schemes. Because being rich even with a flat tax rate they are paying far more than you are, but with an incremental tax rate, guess whats happening with that money? can you say offshoring and undeclared assets? increasing taxes for the rich doesnt do shit but feed their mentality that people are trying to separate them from their money - have a read of any uber-rich person's book (felix dennis for example) and you will see this mentality that once you start gaining real money, the powers that be will attempt to deprive you of it - is pervasive. they are paranoid about it. Heres a better question: How is it you think raising taxes on the rich removes wealth inequality or the sundry other problems with mobility? Thats not a gotcha, thats a sincere question.

People harp on about wealth inequality when really they should be looking at making sure everyone is above the poverty line.

taxes on the rich don't lower inequality, but you need to put in things like higher estate taxes. The biggest issue is raising the minimum wage to a living wage so that people don't have to struggle to survive.

[QUOTE=Naught;51384361]taxes on the rich don't lower inequality, but you need to put in things like higher estate taxes. The biggest issue is raising the minimum wage to a living wage so that people don't have to struggle to survive.[/QUOTE] Right, but here's the thing with that, when you raise the minimum wage you directly make more people unemployable. Part of the problem with our economy right now is that it's TOO expensive to hire people. Sure the people that ARE in work get a bigger paycheck, but not only does that result in a smaller work force it also results in inflation which both counteracts the the wage increase AND makes it more difficult for the unemployed. This fallacy that you can solve poverty by simply increasing the minimum wage is actively damaging our economy. Driving employers out of business doesn't improve the economy, it destroys the job market.

And printing shitload of money doesn't really help too, since it causes big money devaluation.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51383734]Fair enough but The New Republic is well respected and the article gives a lot of sources for it's claims. I feel like Clinton was the best candidate that this election had. It probably doesn't feel this way because Donald Trump just won a huge upset but wait a year, Trump's gonna be a trainwreck.[/QUOTE] They do research indeed, they are also quite biased and have been for years.

Great, more reasons for random people to hate me for no reason. [editline]17th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=soulharvester;51384421]Right, but here's the thing with that, when you raise the minimum wage you directly make more people unemployable. Part of the problem with our economy right now is that it's TOO expensive to hire people. Sure the people that ARE in work get a bigger paycheck, but not only does that result in a smaller work force it also results in inflation which both counteracts the the wage increase AND makes it more difficult for the unemployed. This fallacy that you can solve poverty by simply increasing the minimum wage is actively damaging our economy. Driving employers out of business doesn't improve the economy, it destroys the job market.[/QUOTE] Ok except in every case that the minimum wage has been increased, the economy improved. [editline]17th November 2016[/editline] The real money (not nominal) that the average worker makes hasn't gone up in decades, while productivity and the wealth of the elite, and change in real wealth has skyrocketed

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;51384308]increasing taxes on the rich is hilariously ineffective unless you aggressively pursue tax evasion schemes. Because being rich even with a flat tax rate they are paying far more than you are, but with an incremental tax rate, guess whats happening with that money? can you say offshoring and undeclared assets? increasing taxes for the rich doesnt do shit but feed their mentality that people are trying to separate them from their money - have a read of any uber-rich person's book (felix dennis for example) and you will see this mentality that once you start gaining real money, the powers that be will attempt to deprive you of it - is pervasive. they are paranoid about it. Heres a better question: How is it you think raising taxes on the rich removes wealth inequality or the sundry other problems with mobility? Thats not a gotcha, thats a sincere question.[/QUOTE] Okay, I dont know. How does not taxing them help? How do you solve that issue without taxation? Minimum wage raises are considered to be bad so what is the answer

Return to an actual free market would help, should look up some of Peter Schiff's stuff, his stances are the bulk of what reinforce my own. [url]https://www.youtube.com/user/SchiffReport/videos[/url]