How Did Trump Win?

geoffblades's picture
geoffblades - Certified Professional
Rank: King Kong | banana points 1,961

Right after the credit bubble burst in 2008, shocked, people scrambled desperately for answers.

Turning to the economists, nearly all of whom failed to predict the deepest recession in decades, they asked, "What will happen next?"

Having seen the obvious writing on the enormous wall of debt shadowing the world, and positioned myself perfectly in a distressed debt investing job, I found it terribly amusing.

If the world's "smartest" economists couldn't even see the credit crisis coming, then, how would they have any clue about where we are now headed?

OBAMA AND TRUMP WON THE SAME WAY

I won't even turn on the TV or Internet to watch the mostly useless talking heads endlessly debate how "this could have happened."

Nearly all of them had absolutely no clue before, so, why on earth would they see it any more clearly today?

They won't. You can already see them blaming Wikileaks, or whatnot.

They will cry in their lattes, but most of them will never get how Trump pulled this off, because they never bothered to ask how Barack Obama did it.

Mesmerized by his nice sounding words, and slow, melodic voice, buying into the meme of the messiah, they simply failed to see they were being influenced.

They still fail to see the true nature of the game.

NO ONE ASKED HOW TRUMP WAS WINNING

On CNBC's Squawk Box talking about the book I wrote on Trump (not supporting him, talking about how he was thrashing the GOP), I was challenged to explain whether Trump was really winning...

I talked football. In reference to Trump thrashing 16 of his rivals in the GOP, I said, if a football team went 16-0, we wouldn't be sitting around making excuses, we would be asking: How did they do it?

Instead, with Trump, most people were so blinded by their own opinions, or wrapped up in some of Trump's words, that they failed to look at the impact of those words.

Trump grabbed more Republican primary voters than any candidate in history.

Not because Americans are dumb racist white trash, as most the world's media would like everyone to believe, but because Trump tapped into something deep.

TRUMP TAPPED INTO AMERICA'S PAIN

"We don't win anymore."

That wasn't just a phrase or Trumpism, to many people it is their day-to-day experience, and Trump tapped into that.

Many commentators saw Trump manipulating people with fear, but what they failed to realize was that, in fact, Trump wasn't manipulating anyone.

Instead, he was meeting them where they were, in fear, scared for their families, scared for their future, scared for America.

And with great skill, he rallied them behind him, building perhaps the greatest political movement in all history, beating the crap out of both sides at their own game.

"Make America Great Again," was more than just a campaign slogan, it was the outcome of Trump walking voters from their pain of losing, to the hope they will again win.

This I branded the Trump 4-step: 1. "We don't win anymore." 2. Deepen Pain. 3. Move to Solution. 4. "Make America Great Again."

HILLARY COULDN'T EVEN ONE-STEP

Look, this isn't about politics, it's about skill.

It's obvious to most everyone that Hillary is a terrible campaigner, but few people actually understand why.

They say, "she's wooden," or "doesn't relate well," but, in fact, her problem is simple.

She fails to get influence.

She started with a terrible slogan (I'm with Her), and her and her team proved they knew basically nothing about influence by failing to even start with the pain.

In her absurd tactic, "Tell Donald America is already great," she misaligned herself with all the Bernie and Trump supporters who were in pain.

By campaigning this way, she basically spat in the face of every person in America who felt like they were losing, invalidating their emotional reality.

That's a bad way to start a relationship with someone. And an even worse way to influence them to rally behind you.

GAME OVER

When this election is written about for years to come, the political boffins, who, like the economists who completely missed the credit crisis, will pen hundreds of books.

They will be full of wild policy ideas, polls, demographics, and reasons "it was obvious" Trump would win.

But, sadly, nearly all of them will, just like Hillary, still fail to get it.

They still haven't figured out that this sport of politics that they love so much is only a game of influence.

Mod Note (Andy): Best of 2016, this post ranks #38 for the past year

Consulting Case Interview Course

  • 2,037 questions across 209 consulting firms. Crowdsourced from over 600,000 members.
  • 11 Detailed Exclusive Cases developed by a McKinsey Associate and 10+ hours of video.
  • Trusted by over 1,000 aspiring consultants just like you.

Comments (111)

Nov 9, 2016

Good post. The polls and all the talking heads got it wrong...and they weren't just wrong by a small margin- they were DEAD wrong.

    • 4
    • 1
Nov 9, 2016

to be fair polls had her winning the popular vote and she will win the popular vote.

    • 2
    • 2
Nov 9, 2016

Nobody wants to read your book.

It's not necessary to break out every sentence as a separate paragraph.

    • 9
    • 4
Nov 9, 2016

I think this guy broke it out down pretty much perfectly;

Colourful TV, colourless Life.

    • 8
Nov 9, 2016

Love Secular Talk watching the ''what Trump did right" video now.

Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Nov 11, 2016

That kid is a self righteous douchebag. He is rarely right about anything but acts like he is better because he is "more right" than the MSM.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Nov 11, 2016

Eh, hes been down latley, politically he fails but on religion and culture he is alright. He's not my fav alt media person, but i enjoy his show none the less.

Nov 15, 2016

He rarely has an original thought, he likes to act like he is some sort or oracle about bullshit that doesn't even matter.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Nov 9, 2016

3:30 I saw that during the debates and speeches. This has been researched in psychology and in management science. I don't see how Hillary and all her staff could have possibly missed that. To be fair though, this was about HER and Her ability to take on the tasks as President of the United States of America. She still won the popular vote though.

How is my grammar? Drop me a note with any errors you see!

Nov 9, 2016

she won the popular vote by 0.2 % I mean c'mon she choked. Dems should've had bernie if they wanted to win.

Nov 10, 2016

I've heard a lot of talk on the left about how they should have chose Bernie as he would have won. I think that is fucking BANNANAS - there is no way this country would vote an avowed socialist into office. Plus, if he did win, do you think Texas is sticking around for that? Fuck no.

Nov 16, 2016
BillBelichick37:

she won the popular vote by 0.2 % I mean c'mon she choked. Dems should've had bernie if they wanted to win.

My as$. Bernie couldn't even stand up to 2 crazy women from " black lives matter" which ruin his speech in Seattle. That communist is not fit to be a president.

Nov 16, 2016

I still would've voted trump but the fact is his supporters justifiably didn't vote for hillary.

Nov 11, 2016

The Democrats win the popular vote because of states like NY and Cali where they can just run up the vote counts. For example if you completely remove California from the popular vote Trump would have won the popular vote by several million votes.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Nov 12, 2016
heister:

The Democrats win the popular vote because of states like NY and Cali where they can just run up the vote counts. For example if you completely remove California from the popular vote Trump would have won the popular vote by several million votes.

Why does that matter? Why should people in California or New York have less say in the political process than states like Wyoming and South Dakota?

The whole electoral college needs to be eliminated, it is an archaic political system that is no longer needed. Because of the system only voters in battleground states have an impact on the political process and it gives low population states disproportionate impact on the presidential selection process. The president is elected to rule over all people and for that reason every citizen deserves to have their voice heard. You could also make the argument that because of the electoral system, educated voters and minorities are underrepresented in the presidential election.

    • 4
    • 5
Nov 13, 2016
NYMonkey371:

heister:The Democrats win the popular vote because of states like NY and Cali where they can just run up the vote counts. For example if you completely remove California from the popular vote Trump would have won the popular vote by several million votes.

Why does that matter? Why should people in California or New York have less say in the political process than states like Wyoming and South Dakota?

The whole electoral college needs to be eliminated, it is an archaic political system that is no longer needed. Because of the system only voters in battleground states have an impact on the political process and it gives low population states disproportionate impact on the presidential selection process. The president is elected to rule over all people and for that reason every citizen deserves to have their voice heard. You could also make the argument that because of the electoral system, educated voters and minorities are underrepresented in the presidential election.

OMG, such mouth-breathing ignorance in this post that I honestly don't even know where to begin.

I live in a deep blue area of a blue state. You know how many presidential political ads I saw during the general election? Other than national TV programs, none--zero. Because in our system the presidential candidates have a strategy for turning out the vote that would be completely unrecognizable in a national popular vote scenario. The national popular vote we saw in 2016 would look NOTHING like what we saw had the candidates run their campaigns as if the national popular vote mattered. It's comparing apples to oranges. For all we know, in a campaign with the national popular vote electing the president we'd have Clinton with a higher percentage of the total, or maybe a lot less. Totally different campaign strategies. So let's just set aside that somehow someone was robbed of anything.

Second of all, we DO have proportional representation--it's called the U.S. House of Representatives. They teach this to you in 7th grade civics class, for fuck's sake.

Third, voters in battleground states aren't the only ones with a voice. California provided 55 of 539 voices; Virginia provided 13; D.C. 3; and so on. ALL of them provided a voice. Across the Democratic and Republican primaries and the general election there were, by my count, 161 democratic elections held to elect the president, where even Guam and Puerto Rico had their say.

Fourth, the president isn't elected to "rule" over anyone. The president is a public servant who has sworn to subordinate himself to the U.S. Constitution and to the rule of law. If you see the president as a "ruler" it's because your progressive politics over the last century has vastly expanded the power of the executive beyond its enumerated authority. That's a problem with your politics, not with the Constitution.

Nov 13, 2016

DC having electoral college votes is the stupidest thing on earth. Not surprisingly they voted for Crooked Hillary.

    • 1
    • 2
Nov 13, 2016
Virginia Tech 4ever:

NYMonkey371: heister:The Democrats win the popular vote because of states like NY and Cali where they can just run up the vote counts. For example if you completely remove California from the popular vote Trump would have won the popular vote by several million votes.Why does that matter? Why should people in California or New York have less say in the political process than states like Wyoming and South Dakota?The whole electoral college needs to be eliminated, it is an archaic political system that is no longer needed. Because of the system only voters in battleground states have an impact on the political process and it gives low population states disproportionate impact on the presidential selection process. The president is elected to rule over all people and for that reason every citizen deserves to have their voice heard. You could also make the argument that because of the electoral system, educated voters and minorities are underrepresented in the presidential election.

OMG, such mouth-breathing ignorance in this post that I honestly don't even know where to begin.

I live in a deep blue area of a blue state. You know how many presidential political ads I saw during the general election? Other than national TV programs, none--zero. Because in our system the presidential candidates have a strategy for turning out the vote that would be completely unrecognizable in a national popular vote scenario. The national popular vote we saw in 2016 would look NOTHING like what we saw had the candidates run their campaigns as if the national popular vote mattered. It's comparing apples to oranges. For all we know, in a campaign with the national popular vote electing the president we'd have Clinton with a higher percentage of the total, or maybe a lot less. Totally different campaign strategies. So let's just set aside that somehow someone was robbed of anything.

Second of all, we DO have proportional representation--it's called the U.S. House of Representatives. They teach this to you in 7th grade civics class, for fuck's sake.

Third, voters in battleground states aren't the only ones with a voice. California provided 55 of 539 voices; Virginia provided 13; D.C. 3; and so on. ALL of them provided a voice. Across the Democratic and Republican primaries and the general election there were, by my count, 161 democratic elections held to elect the president, where even Guam and Puerto Rico had their say.

Fourth, the president isn't elected to "rule" over anyone. The president is a public servant who has sworn to subordinate himself to the U.S. Constitution and to the rule of law. If you see the president as a "ruler" it's because your progressive politics over the last century has vastly expanded the power of the executive beyond its enumerated authority. That's a problem with your politics, not with the Constitution.

1) I'm not a liberal, I voted Romney in the last election. I don't like trump though, bigotry is not my cup of tea. I agree, there is no guarantee Hillary would have won a popular vote election. They would have campaigned differently, and people would have voted differently. I live in california and voted third party because I knew my vote was worthless. I would have voted Clinton if it was a popular vote election.

2) I meant govern, not rule, apologies for the diction it's Saturday night. Regardless, the president governs the whole county, while the house and senate are responsible for looking out for their elected states/ districts. The point is every person should have equal say in the presidential election. There is no reason for the electoral college to exist at this point.

3) in the presidential election your vote is worthless unless you are in a battleground state, period. In California my vote doesn't matter because it goes blue every time (hence why I voted third party). You could make that argument in other deep red and blue states. If you are a conservative living in a deep blue state you should want to abolish the electoral college because then your vote will matter.

    • 1
    • 1
Nov 13, 2016

You don't get it. Our founding fathers looked to history (hence the very name of the senate) and rightfully concluded that democracy was a dangerous endeavor, thus they created a system of indirect democratic representation to balance the desires of a self-centered majority. The "people" have a say in the head of state indirectly via their state representation. That's not "antiquated" or "archaic"--it's fundamentally American and in-place for a reason.

The electoral college, like representation in the senate, was a compromise, a gift by the larger states to the smaller states as incentive to join the union. The larger states gave this tribute for the greater good of union, something unimaginable today (altruism and nationalism, a bad word!)

Finally, fuck California. California is overrun by illegal aliens, many who likely voted illegally in the presidential race--thank God the corruption in that state has no impact on the final election results thanks to the electoral college. I really don't give a damn what California's Mexican population wants. California ASKED to join the union, fully knowing the rules, laws, etc that it would live under. Calexit for all I care.

Nov 13, 2016

So we're just throwing out allegations that illegal aliens voted in the presidential race with no evidence now? Cool.

    • 5
    • 2
Nov 13, 2016

When the analysis comes out in a few months (Michael Barone does a detailed analysis of voting patterns each election cycle), I will post it here. Given how liberal California's voting procedures are and how lax their immigration enforcement is it is almost certain that there was electoral fraud.

Nov 13, 2016
Virginia Tech 4ever:

You don't get it. Our founding fathers looked to history (hence the very name of the senate) and rightfully concluded that democracy was a dangerous endeavor, thus they created a system of indirect democratic representation to balance the desires of a self-centered majority. The "people" have a say in the head of state indirectly via their state representation. That's not "antiquated" or "archaic"--it's fundamentally American and in-place for a reason.

The electoral college, like representation in the senate, was a compromise, a gift by the larger states to the smaller states as incentive to join the union. The larger states gave this tribute for the greater good of union, something unimaginable today (altruism and nationalism, a bad word!)

Finally, fuck California. California is overrun by illegal aliens, many who likely voted illegally in the presidential race--thank God the corruption in that state has no impact on the final election results thanks to the electoral college. I really don't give a damn what California's Mexican population wants. California ASKED to join the union, fully knowing the rules, laws, etc that it would live under. Calexit for all I care.

Settle down man, no need to be so patronizing and intolerant. Of course I understand what the electoral college was set up to do. But the electoral college does not work that way anymore. In recent history, the electoral college has always voted for the candidate who wins the given state. In many states they are even required to by law. If these representatives are forced to vote for their state winner, then the only impact the electoral college has is making these states winner take all. I think the winner take all concept is bad because every vote should matter, not just those in swing states. Further, you give outsized influence to people living in swing states and states with a smaller population.

Secondly, the United States belongs to Mexican Americans just as much as it belongs to you and your post is the reason why minorities are scared. Last time I checked, all European Americans immigrated here too, so im not sure where your sense of superiority comes from. Just because they disagree with you does not discount their political opinion. I agree California has it issues, but it is 100x better than most states that reliably vote red. There is a reason why so many rich and educated people live in CA and why many would never live in Mississippi for example.

    • 1
    • 1
Nov 14, 2016

"You could also make the argument that because of the electoral system, educated voters and minorities are underrepresented in the presidential election."

Please make that argument, I would love to hear it. Let me guess its because the red states are full of uneducated white guys who sit around on Friday nights in their klan robes drinking bud heavy? I consider myself pretty moderate and equally hate the dems and republicans but I will say the dems are way more guilty of stereotyping than the supposed racists and sexists on the other side. Isn't it ironic that when you call a group of people those things that you are actually the one judging and being the bigot?

    • 1
Nov 14, 2016

wtf are u talking about here? His statement has nothing to do w/ the Klan or "drinking bud". It is verifiable fact that a.) minorities mostly live in cities within states that are either deep red or deep blue and b.) rural America, which is overrepresented in the electoral college, is less educated than urban America, which is underrepresented. No need to make conclusions/ assumptions on intelligence or Klan robes or "drinking bud", your complete misconstruing of his statement is baffling.

    • 2
    • 1
Nov 15, 2016

How is middle America over represented? Based on population? You mean that thing called the census where they count the people all across America and then divide up the electoral college votes based on population? Quit being so god damn salty your team lost.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Nov 15, 2016
heister:

How is middle America over represented? Based on population? You mean that thing called the census where they count the people all across America and then divide up the electoral college votes based on population? Quit being so god damn salty your team lost.

The electoral college isn't divided based on population. Each state has EC representatives equal to the number of house representatives and senators. Every state has 2 senators regardless of population. So rural areas are over represented in the electoral college. That rule should be changed and the EC should also be awarded proportionally in each state, not as winner take all.

That said, Trump has won and I hope he does a decent job . As moderate conservative, I just hope he doesn't take down the republican party with him and swing the election to a radical leftist in the next election. Unfortunately appointing the white nationalist Steve Bannon to a leading position in his administration was not a step in the right direction. I don't know what is worse, having Steve Bannon in the white house, or having people actually believe Breitbart is a news outlet.

    • 1
Nov 16, 2016

But guess what, every state has two senators...... So the population is divided among the house of representatives which is then proportionately divided to the states based on population. Shocker, it is like the Senate plays no role in the count.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Nov 9, 2016

That was fantastic. Another thing I'd like to point out is that Donald trump really isn't a Republican. He used the 2 party system to his advantage which was absolutely genius. This is why he said the mexican shit, he knew it would make him more notable in the primaries and once he won the republican party it was easy to beat one person as arrogant as hillary.

    • 1
    • 1
Nov 9, 2016

IMO, the bottom line is that the people conducting the polls do not care to leave their NYC/LA/College Campus settings to really get some valuable data on the voters.

It's easier to do a cross section of "likely voters" generally in and around the place you work rather than getting hardcore boots on the ground in the highly unglamourous counties all over middle America. None of these urban/liberal pollsters want to leave their ivory towers to be grinding day in and day out through Pennsyltucky.

    • 5
    • 1
Nov 9, 2016

America wanted a change. Obama promised and was elected as a messiah. He didn't deliver.
America is still wanting that change, so they flocked under Trump's banner. He has a lot to deliver. We'll see.

The rest is just the establishment machine crumbling. Polls have zero credibility at this point, save for the LA Times one.
Mainstream media credibility that called Hillary's victory before the primaries were even finished is also equally down the toilet. ''She won all the 3 debates''. Right. A well oiled machine for something that was scriped from beginning to end. Except not enough people liked that end.

Nov 9, 2016

Hillary did in fact win the debates IMO, but the debates in general were a bit sad. I had hoped for some substantive discussion or some insight into policy. Something other than general platitudes that each American interprets to fit his own narrative of the world and snarky insults hurled back in forth. Pollyannaish, I know.

However, I do agree with the first part; the change message resonated with Americans. The pundits (and I suspect even most of us on this board) live in these bubbles of Blue. Even if you live in a red state, if you live in one of the major cities in that state, you are likely among a sea of blue. Thus, these pundits didn't know for themselves how many Americans felt the way they do.

Final bit: while the pollsters do certainly seem like laughingstocks for getting this one wrong, we should recognize that we're asking them to literally predict the future. The majority of Americans thoroughly disliked both candidates, and thus this was always going to be a difficult exercise, especially as the polling gap narrowed quickly towards the end of the race. The same pollsters and organizations have delivered accurately countless times (even during this cycle with state ballot measures, gubernatorial races etc.)

Just my worthless $0.02.

Nov 15, 2016

The L.A. Times poll was wrong. It predicted Trump +3 in popular vote when everyone else predicted Hillary +2.5. Not done counting but so far its Hillary +1.5, and will eventually be Hillary +2 it seems.

The L.A. Times itself (somewhat ignoring its own poll) also predicted a Hillary 320+ victory.

Yeah I'm an annoying statistics/polling pedant, but its just factually incorrect to say the L.A. Times was right.

Nov 15, 2016

I'd take pedantic over liars any day.

Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Nov 9, 2016
  1. Trump won because we have the electoral college. He lost the popular vote. Aside from that, I completely agree.
  2. As a Hillary supporter, "I'm with Her" was a terrible slogan. Trump and Obama had very proactive slogans that told you what they were about and were distinctly not about themselves. Hers was just a statement, and it was all about her.
    • 1
Nov 9, 2016

Looks like nothing beats under-educated white male nationalism...'Murica

    • 7
    • 10
Nov 10, 2016

Trump won the majority of educated white males.

Nice comment though. Love the anti white racism because a corrupt candidate didn't win.

Nov 10, 2016
TNA:

Trump won the majority of educated white males.

Nice distraction attempt. Trump noticeably underperformed Romney in white educated males. Trump won because of white males who didn't go to college

    • 1
Nov 10, 2016
Going Concern:

TNA:Trump won the majority of educated white males.

Nice distraction attempt. Trump noticeably underperformed Romney in white educated males. Trump won because of white males who didn't go to college

''Educated'' white males are sure doing an amazing job as economists who can't see a recession near the corner, or statisticians that can't get a poll right.

If these are the educated, self serving parasytes who do not seek the truth, but fabricate one for themselves, then welcome the uneducated.

    • 2
    • 3
Nov 10, 2016

Good point. Typical liberal doublethink.

"uneducated" - really should be described as someone without a bachelor degree. Even though that doesn't make one wise, smart or experienced.

White "uneducated" males - horrible

Black "uneducated" voters - wonderful. Doing what is best for them voting for Hillary.

Latino "uneducated" voters - wonderful. Doing what is best for them voting for Hillary.

I really wish the "educated" urban kings and queens wouldn't forget that their wise and omnipotent behavior crashed the economy and K street had to bail them out on the back of common tax payers.

Yale Graduate Bush and his cronies gave us Iraq and Afghanistan.

Nov 10, 2016
TNA:

Good point. Typical liberal doublethink.

"uneducated" - really should be described as someone without a bachelor degree. Even though that doesn't make one wise, smart or experienced.

White "uneducated" males - horrible

Black "uneducated" voters - wonderful. Doing what is best for them voting for Hillary.

Latino "uneducated" voters - wonderful. Doing what is best for them voting for Hillary.

I really wish the "educated" urban kings and queens wouldn't forget that their wise and omnipotent behavior crashed the economy and K street had to bail them out on the back of common tax payers.

Yale Graduate Bush and his cronies gave us Iraq and Afghanistan.

Let's add:
Oxford educated Clinton repealed Glass Steagall, which is why the financial sector is so fucked up now.
He also propped up oligarchs in Russia, ruining the only chance for normal American-Russian relations post Soviet era.

Harvard educated Obama works with Saudi Salafists to destroy Syria, Qatari funded Muslim Brotherhood to destroy Lybia.

God I fucking love these kind of intellectuals. All they can do is use what they learn to fuck things up and cover it up.

    • 3
Nov 10, 2016

Trump won because the Dem base didn't show up and vote.

    • 1
Nov 11, 2016

Trump beat the shit out of what Mitt did (look at minority votes from 2012 and 2016). @TNA and any other rational person could see that Trump won because he outperformed on all fronts. The final nail in the coffin was how lazy Hillary was in her campaign. Trump worked his ass off and never gave up despite all of the backlash. She didn't address the rust belt (coal, "america has always been great") and they made her pay.

Nov 9, 2016

It's clear this country has a serious problem. Most of the major cities and directly surrounding suburbs are strongly blue and many of the small rural towns which make up the bulk of the US are super red. They're like two different worlds

The intensification of the urban-rural divide is one of the biggest contributors to this situation

    • 2
Nov 9, 2016
Going Concern:

It's clear this country has a serious problem. Most of the major cities and directly surrounding suburbs are strongly blue and many of the small rural towns which make up the bulk of the US are super red. They're like two different worlds

The intensification of the urban-rural divide is one of the biggest contributors to this situation

Agreed. My only question is how do we carve up the map to dissolve this union? It's not working. I think I have significantly more in common with someone from London, Sydney, or Hong Kong than someone from Alabama or Mississippi.

    • 5
    • 1
Nov 9, 2016

Put it to a popular vote by county. Each one becomes a territory of one of two newly formed countries from the old remains of the USA. We'd have to scrap the unspoken rule that a country has to be one connected land mass for the most part

I even have much more in common with people from Montreal, and they just sit around talking in french and eating poutine

The urban-rural divide is stunning. Cities deep in red states vote blue, such as Atlanta, Nashville, Houston, Dallas, Charlotte, Charleston, etc

    • 2
Nov 10, 2016

I live in one of those blue cities within a red state and have lived in a few others as well. It truly is like living inside another world, and to your earlier point, it becomes very easy, if not unavoidable, to live in this bubble where you have no idea how those in the rural parts of the state feel.

Nov 10, 2016
DickFuld:

Going Concern:It's clear this country has a serious problem. Most of the major cities and directly surrounding suburbs are strongly blue and many of the small rural towns which make up the bulk of the US are super red. They're like two different worldsThe intensification of the urban-rural divide is one of the biggest contributors to this situation

Agreed. My only question is how do we carve up the map to dissolve this union? It's not working. I think I have significantly more in common with someone from London, Sydney, or Hong Kong than someone from Alabama or Mississippi.

If you can shoot pool and have a beer, you'll get along with us simple folks!

Nov 10, 2016
DickFuld:

Going Concern:It's clear this country has a serious problem. Most of the major cities and directly surrounding suburbs are strongly blue and many of the small rural towns which make up the bulk of the US are super red. They're like two different worldsThe intensification of the urban-rural divide is one of the biggest contributors to this situation

Agreed. My only question is how do we carve up the map to dissolve this union? It's not working. I think I have significantly more in common with someone from London, Sydney, or Hong Kong than someone from Alabama or Mississippi.

Ironically, I think technology (automation, renewable energy, etc.) will serve to significantly bridge this divide. As society makes the transition to self-driving vehicles and renewable energy, people will become much more motivated to live in cheaper and more spacious areas. In addition, the technology itself will continue to become cheaper and cheaper over time. In 2016, a Tesla model 3 is only $35,000.

These types of areas are located outside of cities and the surrounding suburbs. Due to autonomous vehicles and renewable energy, it will no longer be inefficient to travel traditionally long distances (2? hours by car). You'll be driven straight into the city by your $35,000, (solar-powered?) Tesla. Since you'll be able to work on your laptop during the 2 hour commute, there is no loss in productivity.

Science has the potentially to rejuvenate 'distanced' communities more than ever before. However, nothing will change the fact that these people need to start training themselves with useful skills. Unless you want to live on welfare for the rest of your life, there is no other alternative. People need to start coming to terms with this fact.

Nov 10, 2016

this is sad. I'm sure you're upset DF, and maybe it's hyperbole, by why do you automatically go to the idea of carving up America? instead, you could seek to understand the other side's point of view, while hopefully the other side would seek to understand your point of view. maybe that's too idealistic, but I think if we just seek to understand others' points of view, there wouldn't be such divisiveness. maybe Trump would still be Prez and people would still be pissed, I dunno, just thinking of a better alternative.

    • 3
Nov 10, 2016
thebrofessor:

this is sad. I'm sure you're upset DF, and maybe it's hyperbole, by why do you automatically go to the idea of carving up America? instead, you could seek to understand the other side's point of view, while hopefully the other side would seek to understand your point of view. maybe that's too idealistic, but I think if we just seek to understand others' points of view, there wouldn't be such divisiveness. maybe Trump would still be Prez and people would still be pissed, I dunno, just thinking of a better alternative.

It's something I've thought about for a long time and it is becoming more and more evident that it is the best long-term solution. Other than football, people in NYC and Alabama have very little in common in their viewpoint on the world. Looking at everything from church attendance, to gun ownership, to income levels, to tax dollars received/paid by states and their residents, beliefs about basic science, etc. everything is radically different. These are irreconcilable differences. I think a good number of people understand the other point of view of the other side, but just fundamentally disagree. A sizable number of people say things like, "That's what it says in the Bible." for justification for a good number of their beliefs. You can't reason with people like that.

What's good for Alabama is probably not good for people here. Let's just make it an amicable divorce and everyone should be better off.

    • 5
    • 3
Nov 10, 2016

the Christian Right is the fucking worst (and I live in the Bible belt and am a Christian). I hope once all of those people die off we get reasonable republicans who can separate church & state (like it says in the constitution).

you're right, there's no reasoning with those people. I guess I'm too much of an idealist.

Nov 10, 2016
DickFuld:

thebrofessor:this is sad. I'm sure you're upset DF, and maybe it's hyperbole, by why do you automatically go to the idea of carving up America? instead, you could seek to understand the other side's point of view, while hopefully the other side would seek to understand your point of view. maybe that's too idealistic, but I think if we just seek to understand others' points of view, there wouldn't be such divisiveness. maybe Trump would still be Prez and people would still be pissed, I dunno, just thinking of a better alternative.

It's something I've thought about for a long time and it is becoming more and more evident that it is the best long-term solution. Other than football, people in NYC and Alabama have very little in common in their viewpoint on the world. Looking at everything from church attendance, to gun ownership, to income levels, to tax dollars received/paid by states and their residents, beliefs about basic science, etc. everything is radically different. These are irreconcilable differences. I think a good number of people understand the other point of view of the other side, but just fundamentally disagree. A sizable number of people say things like, "That's what it says in the Bible." for justification for a good number of their beliefs. You can't reason with people like that.

What's good for Alabama is probably not good for people here. Let's just make it an amicable divorce and everyone should be better off.

Post of the year right here

When you really get down to it this two party system is artifical and arbitrary. I don't fully support either side. What I would care most about is stances resonating with urban/suburban, educated, professional people. But that's not what these elections are about

Guys like Bloomberg or Weld could have been interesting choices for president, but those weren't the options we had

It's clear that there is a growing populist uprising in the US, fueled by folks from small rural towns whose philosophies and perspectives are fundamentally different and irreconcilable

    • 4
Nov 10, 2016

This is the only way people are going to come together in any sort of fashion. If you stand still in your echo chamber and refuse to consider any of the other side's arguments, then you are not helping create any solution. Both sides are guilty of that, and the divide is only getting worse as people increasingly try to force their own viewpoints on others through laws, public opinion, media, etc. Instead of standing back and listening, people immediately flare up in anger at any challenge to their way of thinking and start hurling insults.

    • 2
Nov 10, 2016

I don't think carving up will help you guys. You're better off devising ways to manipulate them so you can keep the land, and avoid interaction.

Nov 10, 2016
Black Knight:

I don't think carving up will help you guys. You're better off devising ways to manipulate them so you can keep the land, and avoid interaction.

Personally, I think we should just build a wall.

    • 4
Dec 28, 2016

Then move. Unlike in the Soviet Union or in North Korea, you're free to get the fuck out of here.

Dec 28, 2016
Virginia Tech 4ever:

Then move. Unlike in the Soviet Union or in North Korea, you're free to get the fuck out of here.

Cute. Not really true though. If you renounce your citizenship, you owe a huge tax, assuming you have money to begin with. If not, the only three countries that tax worldwide income are North Korea, Iraq, and the USA.

More importantly, I'd rather force the people in the Deep South out of this country than I'd rather leave. If New England and the West Coast were to leave the US, where would the welfare payers come from?

    • 3
    • 4
Dec 28, 2016
DickFuld:

Virginia Tech 4ever:Then move. Unlike in the Soviet Union or in North Korea, you're free to get the fuck out of here.

Cute. Not really true though. If you renounce your citizenship, you owe a huge tax, assuming you have money to begin with. If not, the only three countries that tax worldwide income are North Korea, Iraq, and the USA.

More importantly, I'd rather force the people in the Deep South out of this country than I'd rather leave. If New England and the West Coast were to leave the US, where would the welfare payers come from?

I'm sorry, a blue state liberal complaining about paying taxes? Wow. Am I surprised that a liberal is a rank hypocrite? Not at all.

Keep dreamin', jerk. Secession isn't happening anytime soon. You can enjoy bitching about rural people all you want over your $8 latte. It's not going to change a goddamn thing.

Dec 28, 2016
Virginia Tech 4ever:

DickFuld: Virginia Tech 4ever:Then move. Unlike in the Soviet Union or in North Korea, you're free to get the fuck out of here.Cute. Not really true though. If you renounce your citizenship, you owe a huge tax, assuming you have money to begin with. If not, the only three countries that tax worldwide income are North Korea, Iraq, and the USA.More importantly, I'd rather force the people in the Deep South out of this country than I'd rather leave. If New England and the West Coast were to leave the US, where would the welfare payers come from?

I'm sorry, a blue state liberal complaining about paying taxes? Wow. Am I surprised that a liberal is a rank hypocrite? Not at all.

Keep dreamin', jerk. Secession isn't happening anytime soon. You can enjoy bitching about rural people all you want over your $8 latte. It's not going to change a goddamn thing.

I'm so glad you know me so well. You think I'm liberal? Well, that's nice.

You are the reason I want a divorce. I don't mix well with mouth breathing retards who survive on the oxygen that is Fox News. Let's just split amicably.

Do you disagree that there is a large tax to pay if you leave the country? Just trying to see if facts are an obstacle for you.

    • 4
    • 4
Dec 28, 2016
DickFuld:

Virginia Tech 4ever: DickFuld: Virginia Tech 4ever:Then move. Unlike in the Soviet Union or in North Korea, you're free to get the fuck out of here.Cute. Not really true though. If you renounce your citizenship, you owe a huge tax, assuming you have money to begin with. If not, the only three countries that tax worldwide income are North Korea, Iraq, and the USA.More importantly, I'd rather force the people in the Deep South out of this country than I'd rather leave. If New England and the West Coast were to leave the US, where would the welfare payers come from?I'm sorry, a blue state liberal complaining about paying taxes? Wow. Am I surprised that a liberal is a rank hypocrite? Not at all.Keep dreamin', jerk. Secession isn't happening anytime soon. You can enjoy bitching about rural people all you want over your $8 latte. It's not going to change a goddamn thing.

I'm so glad you know me so well. You think I'm liberal? Well, that's nice.

You are the reason I want a divorce. I don't mix well with mouth breathing retards who survive on the oxygen that is Fox News. Let's just split amicably.

Do you disagree that there is a large tax to pay if you leave the country? Just trying to see if facts are an obstacle for you.

Do you think paying a tax to renounce your citizenship or to live overseas is the same thing as being walled in by Soviet soldiers or by North Korean death squads? Are you so intellectually dishonest?

Once again, enjoy your masturbational fantasies about the secession of the cities from the suburbs and rural land. That's about the most moronic secession fantasy ever put forth by anyone ever and has zero chance of ever happening.

Nov 11, 2016

The political difference isn't the problem. The problem is when one group looks down their nose at people who think differently than they do.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Nov 9, 2016

The one of the reason HRC lost (apart from her crimes) is that she had to pay millions of $ to CTR (correct the record) to spout pro HRC propoganda for her everywhere. DJT on the otherhand had the free & undying support of places like 4chan/reddit (DJT sub) which literally was tens of thousands of people working 24/7 spreading news / info / memes on internet and disproving allegations etc and reading wikileaks with super scrutiny. This is of course just one example of the enthusiasm of DJT supporters. Dont think ive seen 1 enthusiastic HRC person.

One of the biggest dives in her support that we noticed in the polls was when the satanism story dropped. Did any of you see #spiritcooking trending? lots of black/latino votes lost over that )

    • 2
Best Response
Nov 10, 2016

Having grown up in a small town of 4,000 people located in a blue collar county in the midwest, I resonate with Trump's populist movement. My county had a margin favoring Trump of greater than 20% despite voting for Obama in 2008.

Trump is the first person to truly relate with the blue collar American

1. Hand-outs
People in these areas have worked their ass off their whole life doing manual labor in sweaty, dirty conditions to provide for the family and raise children. They live very simple lives, but work very hard. It is the stereotypical American dream. Imagine how they feel about the prospect of the 15 year old kid at Mcdonalds making $15 an hour when they abuse their body on a daily basis to make the same wage.

2. Tariffs
They have grown up seeing the effects of globalization as they, their parents, or friends and family have lost jobs due to factories relocating or jobs being cut in favor of elsewhere. We in Finance live in a bubble shielded from the reality of what is truly happening in the majority of America. We get on boards as activists fighting for restructuring, cutting costs, etc. but these people actually see the end results of the job losses. We all know the economics behind this, but these people only know the suffering they have faced because of it.

3. Honesty
Country people are some of the most humble people you will ever meet. They look at Hillary and see someone who has been found proven guilty of numerous scandals, flip-flopped positions, and reeks of fake in every word she speaks. In Trump they see someone who isn't perfect, but has the intention to tell the truth. You all know that we would be fired instantly if we did the same thing with our emails that Hillary did. To the average Joe, Hillary represents everything he is not.

4. Guns
Hunting is life in some of these areas. State laws actually forbid schools from holding extracurricular activities after school on the night before deer season opens. Hillary supported reversing the Supreme Court decision which shields gun manufacturers from legal liability in shooting lawsuits. You are all finance people, you know what would happen if after every shooting the victim could just go sue the manufacturer.

America is fed up
They want someone who is as far removed from the inner circles of the elite and wealthy establishment as they are. Trump delivered that perception. In fact Trump is despised by the establishment, and he offers these people a hope that they will have a candidate who will truly care about the simple lives they live. This is why he routed in the rust belt swing states like Ohio, Wisconsin, and the Midwest, and rural states like North Carolina, Georgia, and the south.

I realize that 99% of people on this forum will not relate to the above sentiment at all, but it just shows how out of touch we are with the average Joe of this country who doesn't think about exit opps, bonus season, or which school has the most prestige.

This was a true populist movement unlike any that has happened before.

    • 34
Nov 9, 2016

I watched the coverage on abc and I heard something that really made a lot of sense. The non-bachelor degree holding voters over 25 OVERWHELMINGLY voted for trump on the basis that wages when adjusted for inflation have gone down significantly. People forget that 70% of the american public don't have a degree and they have been stuck for the last 20 years. David Muir said it was "A punch in the face to the establishment."

Nov 11, 2016

Joe Rogan said it best. "political correctness just took a missile to the dick". This can be pretty much be translated directly to the political establishment as well. Democrats think they had the rug pulled out from under them via the electoral college. They don't even take a look at the down ballot results. Democrats now control the governorship in 5 states, control both sides of the state legislators in just 5 states as well. This is far bigger than just the presidency, it Democrats have little to no sense of reality. They have far far bigger problems than just loosing the presidency, their benches are basically destroyed.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Nov 9, 2016

Agreed. I live in a very blue state and my father has worked in construction his whole life. He spends the majority of his time (life) in the worst parts of the city doing site work. What he sees all day is minorities without jobs, drug addicts, graffiti on their newly constructed projects, laborers that can hardly speak english etc. His wage has stayed relatively stagnant as taxes have constantly increased. Trump's campaign spoke directly to this large, ultimately forgotten demographic, and it makes sense that he is going to be the next president.

Nov 9, 2016
Rags to Hermes:

They want someone who is as far removed from the inner circles of the elite and wealthy establishment as they are. Trump delivered that perception.

And that's exactly what he provided, a perception...not sure if all these people consciously realize that Trump is a billionaire and was born into tremendous wealth

    • 2
    • 1
Nov 10, 2016

I agree with this, but he is also a political outsider who comes in with a clean agenda. Most people do not trust politicians. A problem with our political system in the modern age is the fact it is run by career politicians. How can a politician truly make the best move for the people he represents when he is afraid how it will effect his career down the line? Politicians need to be held to a fiduciary standard to their constituents just as we are with our clients.

Since Trump doesn't have a political career and he has the money to fund much of his campaign, he is less prone to be influenced by lobbyists, donors, and the media, At least this is the hope of America... It remains to be seen.

    • 2
Nov 9, 2016

Trump didn't fund his campaign that much to be honest.

Nov 10, 2016

they do because Trump always mentioned in speeches that he was the Elite and for a long time they loved him. Now they hate him because he wants to take them on. he doesnt hide his billionaire status.

Nov 11, 2016

It doesn't really have anything to do with wealth, it has to do with those that come from the political establishment doing everything they can to protect their globalist agendas.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

    • 1
Nov 10, 2016

thank for this. I always had an inkling that the reasons people hate Trump were not the reasons blue collar America was voting for him.

we'll see if it works out

Nov 15, 2016
  1. Trump is a fraud and a liar. This is a factual statement. Due to a bizarre combination of narcissism and a cringe worthy (really, I feel bad for these types of people) need to be liked the truth is just irrelevant to him. That was some incredible Jui Jitsu that probably the most blatantly dishonest candidate in history, a proven fraud/cheat (Trump University, Atlantic City, UFC, UFL, basically all of his business dealings) somehow managed to label his opponent "crooked."

The email was a Trumped up non-issue Republicans focused on because Benghazi wasn't working and they could get an assist from the FBI.

Scumbag Trump is a billionaire that has spent his entire life screwing people. His wife is a Eastern European supermodel. He is far more of an elite than most of his opponents were. The wins in the rust belt were close, and Hillary could likely haved won if she'd spent any time campaigning there (woops on those polls). Also, Trump had wikileaks and the Comey October surprise on his side.

Lets not re-write history. Trump is a bullshitter who won because some incredible things (Comey) fell his way in the last minute. He didn't kill Hillary in any sense of the word.

Nov 9, 2016

The divide is pretty clear between the people. Example for me personally - Drive 2 hours away from the SF Bay Area and its night and day. No matter how you spin it, people just as little as 2 hours away are vastly different culturally and this was reflected in the election results. Maybe more emphasis should be made down to the county level. That way - those 'rural' areas can get what they want and the 'city' can get what they want. You don't usually get a mix of each (or not much) in each area.

    • 1
Nov 9, 2016

I think this analysis is spot on, but I think his connection goes a further. You said that he won not "because Americans are dumb racist white trash, as most the world's media would like everyone to believe, but because Trump tapped into something deep", but the former point ties in very closely with the latter. He tapped into deep fears on many levels - people are fearful about their jobs and economic prospects, but they're also fearful about all these foreign people as well.

They've watched their jobs go abroad, the media vilifying natural resource production (imagine going to West Virginia and convincing people that coal is bad, it's practically the only paying work they've seen for decades), and their wages dropping due to migrant laborers willing to work for less.

People are scared about letting Syrian refugees in. They know the right thing is to give everyone a fair chance, and they certainly want to, but if even one those is a terrorist, their families might pay the price. They're also scared of not being able to provide for their families anymore when their jobs are disappearing and those that remain are going to Mexicans. Nothing against Mexicans, but they have a country. These jobs are in America, and they should go to Americans first. We're the ones paying taxes and have lived here all our lives. You wouldn't go to Mexico and demand their jobs, because those are for Mexicans. I don't need to tell you that black people have suffered plenty of hate in this country in many forms, and for many people, too many of them near you still brings unease. Sure, they're Americans and deserve a fair chance, just why do they have to be here, attending my daughter's school when there are so many other great ones they could go to?

You can say whatever you want about these views being unfounded or ridiculous, but that doesn't change the fact that many people still have them, and they instill fear at some level. But it's not acceptable to be fearful about these things or you're labeled as backwards, xenophobic white trash, when you're simply a hardworking guy trying to pay his mortgage and money left over for a couple of beers.

Donald Trump makes it okay to be scared about these things. He acknowledges that Mexicans are taking your jobs, and that one of these Syrians might be a terrorist. Not all of them, but just a couple here and there, and that's all you need for another catastrophe. He makes it okay to be scared that your factor may close or the country suffers another terrorist attack, and liberals don't seem to care, they'd rather help a bunch of random Syrians than help you.

A great example is the second debate when they were asked what they would do if the situation in Syria escalated - Hillary gave a wishy-washy answer about not having military occupation and sending in a few special forces to train their security forces. Trump made a blase comment about bombing the shit out of them.

Sure, Hillary may have given a better answer in terms of diplomacy or cautious military strategy or whatever, but If you're a guy who's worried about losing your job, or reeling form the memory of 9/11, who provides you more comfort - this loud over-the-top guy who says he's willing to bomb the fuck out of anyone who messes with us and build a wall - even if he never comes close to actually doing it, or this lady who you're sure is smart and all that, but seems to be far more concerned with helping everyone else, when no has helped you?

I'm sure none of them considered themselves racist or sexist, and few of them would even intentionally want to marginalize these groups, and from their perspective Hillary was only fighting for America, Trump is fighting for you. He's going to bring back the jobs that people seem to have forgotten about, and focus on protecting you first, and worrying about everyone else in the world second.

    • 5
Nov 9, 2016

Massive disconnect between urban and rural areas, Wall Street and K Street and Main Street. Watching the results roll in last night it was clear the anchors have no idea what the thought process is in those red counties making up most of America (geographically). The middle class is the foundation of the country, and the media and "elites" are having a very difficult time gauging how to connect with that demographic (except for Trump, maybe he knows something we don't know).

Nov 9, 2016

Nice win.

Nov 10, 2016

Trump won because he got working class white rural America behind him. The question is, what do these people want and can he deliver? I mean if he follows Paul Ryan's lead there will be massive cuts to the social programs these people need. I don't see how he can bring manufacturing back to the Midwest. My theory is that, regardless of how successful he is overall, he has sold these people (working class rural America) an America that simply no longer exists and will never exist again. When their hopes do not come to fruition and Trump is closer to the status quo than blowing up the entire political system you're going to have a bunch of pissed off people. I'd appreciate any thoughts on this.

    • 3
    • 2
Nov 10, 2016

What social programs does the working class American take advantage of? I guess technically Medicare and social security, eventually, but that is supposed to "repay" what has been taxed historically.

Nov 10, 2016

the same social programs any other poor/ lower middle class American takes advantage of.

    • 1
    • 1
Nov 10, 2016

like what? Maybe we are defining working class differently, or do you not understand the level of poverty someone has to be in to receive assistance from these types of programs?

if a family of four makes over $30k, they general do not qualify for social programs. Median household income in America is like $55k for a family of four... "working class" does not take advantage of social programs, because they do not qualify

Edit: "The median household income of a Trump voter so far in the primaries is about $72,000, based on estimates derived from exit polls and Census Bureau data. "

I know that is from the primary, but it was also indicated in the article that Trump supporters median income is ~$20k less than the other republican candidates...

People relying on social programs overwhelmingly vote democrat. buying votes

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-...

Nov 10, 2016

I just defined working class for you: poor/ lower middle class. Medicare, medicaid, social security, food stamps, pell grants, supplemental security income, earned income tax credit. All these are on the table for cuts. Remember that the median income is very skewed by how much those in the city earn. 55k is enough to buy a house in rural America, doubt that if we stripped city centers from the income calculation that the median would be anywhere near 55k.

p.s. those people that traditionally voted democrats (what you call "buying votes") in the Midwest voted for Trump this election, which is why he won.

    • 2
Nov 10, 2016

Well thanks for defining an ambiguous term with two more ambiguous terms. If the median level of a Trump supporter is $72k, there is no way you can think he was carried by supporters relying on social programs. Further, I would speculate that those who rely on social programs are well aware of the party they should vote for to continue receiving the benefit.

edit: I have not looked into the demographics, but again, I would be surprised if someone relying on food stamps decided to vote for Trump. I am under the impression that the Midwest democrats who propelled Mr. Dump to president were union workers. They would not qualify for social programs, unless they made less than like $15 an hour for a single income family of four, and the unions exist so this does not happen

Nov 10, 2016

dude you are talking primaries where many registered democrats couldn't possibly vote for Trump according to state rules. It is clear, from the electoral map of him flipping numerous rural Midwest counties from blue to red, that many rural traditional democrats/ independents that usually voted democrat voted for Trump. I would speculate that many of those people heard "jobs are coming back" and voted based on that, not social programs.

    • 1
Nov 10, 2016

I know I was referencing the primary, but it is highly unlikely that number comes down materially, given the fact that in the general he picked up some of those Kasich and Cruz supporters as well as some registered democrats and independents.

There should be data that comes out on this in the next few months.

edit: it was the only data point I could find ... better starting point than nothing

Nov 10, 2016

The working class and Trumps supporters are not the poor. We are talking about the farmer, the plumber, the carpenter, and the factory worker.

These people don't want handouts, they just want the opportunity to work hard and put food on the table.

Nov 13, 2016

let me be clear here: the people who flipped from blue to red in the Midwest hoping for manufacturing jobs to come back are most likely significantly poorer than the average american. I am not really concerned with what they want, I am talking about the reality of losing social programs they need and their reaction once manufacturing jobs don't come back/ Trump is part of the establishment (lol @ his "drain the swamp" transition team being filled w/ former lobbyists and corrupt career politicians like Doug Christie and Newt Gingrich).

Nov 13, 2016

Hillary led with people making $35K or below. So lets drop this "poor and dumb voted for trump" meme.

Reality is we have countless companies relocating manufacturing overseas because of cheaper labor. Trump only has to bring back a dozen or more factories for this to be a win.

http://www.industryweek.com/who-is-killing-manufac...
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/06/1...
So don't tell me we cannot pressure companies to bring jobs back to the US. Just like Obama and the Treasury pressured companies with tax inversion.

If Trump passes a special tax holiday in conjunction with lowering corporate tax rates and promises to bring production back to the US, you'll see a massive influx of tax revenue and companies employing Americans. Add to this his plans for infrastructure and you'll see plenty of people in these communities doing better.

Or, the alternative is to do nothing and keep sending jobs overseas, like Hillary wanted. It amazes me how you fault Trump for your assumption that nothing will happen, when at the very least he is talking about these issues, compared to Hillary and other liberals who just talk about retraining and accepting it.

Get woke, stay woke.

Nov 15, 2016

No one said anything about intelligence so idk where that "dumb" comment came from. It is out there that most manufacturing jobs were lost to automation. It is out there that Trump won at the margins and rural America was that margin, HRC's overall lead among those making $35k is irrelevant in this scenario. Let me repeat: Trump won at the margins by promising to bring back manufacturing jobs that were (mostly) lost to automation, that shit is out there dude. If you think he can slow down the march of progress you are deluding yourself. The infrastructure spending will help, but will that be anywhere near enough? I don't know. In my opinion, HRC had the right idea. Manufacturing in this country is dead. Manufacturing in general is a dying exercise as robots get cheaper they will reduce the amount of human labor involved. Why bring back an industry that is dying (with no guarantees you can actually bring it back) instead of looking at ways we can replace the jobs lost from said industry, thus making us stronger moving forward? If he institutes tariffs to "motivate" companies to bring jobs back that will most likely just speed up automation, drive up the prices of goods, & possibly start trade battles (I call it battles b/c I don't see full on trade wars happening). That cash repatriation will go to M&A/ stock buybacks and maybe SOME capital investment, I doubt it will lead to many private sector jobs, but hey we will see. Again, I am sincerely hopeful the president-elect is successful in all his efforts, I just don't see how he can be successful in this aspect.

edit: all his efforts except for that Muslim ban thing, discrimination based on religion is un-American and I am willing to put my personal safety on the line for our values. Same reason the unconstitutional/ un-American patriot act should be repealed. We are starting to sacrifice freedom for security and I want no part of that.

    • 1
Nov 15, 2016

1) Yes, automation has had a serious impact. When a US manufacturer moves their facility overseas, like the links I posted, it isn't because of automation. It is cheaper labor.

Companies relocated for a number reasons. One is to be closer to their end user. Shorten transportation costs. The other is to be close to raw materials. Another is to take advantage of cheaper labor or lax environmental issues (lower cost).

I am fine with the first two. This is why you see foreign companies build facilities here. My issue is with the last one. Those factories can and should be brought back. If the CEO wants to then automate, fine, but at least we will have non-automated jobs for these factories. Even the most automated factory needs maintenance, people to fix the HVAC, people running skidders, loaders, etc.

Additionally, skilled manufacturing isn't being automated right now and can employ plenty of people.

2) Robots are going to put service workers out of work. So you can't just tell people to go into service industries.

3) Banning Muslims is not unconstitutional. They aren't citizens and are not covered by the constitution. Trump has said a million and one times, he wants to stop Muslim immigration until the we can properly vet people. Then people are allowed back in. You might not like it, but it isn't racist, it isn't unconstitutional and it isn't un-American.

And while I agree, long term, manufacturing will continue to die. With that said, there is still plenty of meat on the bone, countless jobs have left because of cheaper labor, not manufacturing and the voting public needs to be helped. You can't just tell voters fuck off while companies who receive endless handouts from the government, paid for by our taxes, maximize profits and ship jobs to lower cost countries.

BTW - this was always the Democrat stance until this election. Then these people because "Angry White Voters" and Hillary ignored them.

Nov 16, 2016

The problem with the "if they want to automate then fine" attitude is that you get no where near the job gains you anticipated but the price of goods still increases plus the likelihood of retaliatory trade policies also increases, so (possibly) a huge net negative for the overall economy. Skilled manufacturing is the least likely to be outsourced, most outsourced jobs are low skill manufacturing jobs.

2.) It will be a long time before robots put service workers out of work (can you imagine a car salesman being a robot anytime soon) in a material way. Interestingly, Ben Casselman of 538 (ik it's a liberal rag blah blah blah) wrote that we should be more focused on improving the working conditions/ pay of our huge service industry, a reality politicians are hardly addressing.

3.) Discrimination based on religion is against our values and I want no part of it, we already vet Syrian refugees over like an 18 month period. The reality is a terrorist is far more likely to be home-grown than a refugee, discriminatory policies will just increase their sense of isolation and make them more susceptible to indoctrination, his "ban" will do nothing but bolster ISIS recruiting, it may make us marginally safer but it will for sure make it easier for ISIS to push their "the west hates Islam" narrative and increase their numbers, so long-term it may make us less safe.

I am for getting corporations out of politics and closing various corporate tax loopholes/ subsidies. Idc what the democrats' previous stance was, I am an independent.

Nov 10, 2016

I am not surprised Trump won. The fact that he vanquished 16 other seasoned politicians in GOP primary was a sign of his exceptional political skill. Also, Trump had this message that brought the best (or worst) out of millions of voters that believed that all these guarded, fancy-talking politicians were all talk, no action. Trump's unapologetic and crude language about what he believed in and stood for gave people the strong conviction that he meant what he said. He didn't care how media portrayed him as this fascist nut-job that is unfit for office. He just cared about his message, no matter how controversial.

What surprised me though is how low Hillary's voter turnout was this year. Trump won the election despite receiving fewer votes than Romney or McCain. Hillary grossly under-performed all expectations and she just failed to excite any sizable voter bloc. She just had too many negative scandals around her and she just lacks the ability to energize or motivate audience. I dare say she may be book-smart about policies and all that, but she just isn't a gifted politician. She's kind of like Jeb Bush: deep in policy substance, low in energy and raw political skill. If Bernie Sanders was the nominee of DNC, I suspect this election would have turned out different. If democrats just scored 10-20 thousand more votes in FL, NC, or PA, this election would have gone their way.

Nov 10, 2016

I really don't understand how a person that has taken a single Economics course in their life could possibly vote for Bernie... Seriously

    • 5
Nov 16, 2016

My asstastic ex-gf loved Bernie. She was so precious.

Nov 11, 2016

Obama did little to unite the nation. He focused more on his legacy instead of creating the opportunities more people to do better.

At the least, Trump deserves the same chance that Obama got.

Nov 11, 2016

November 7th: everyone predicts that Clinton wins and knows exactly why
November 9th: everyone knows exactly why Trump won

    • 3
Nov 11, 2016

I think Trump won because he got more electoral votes than Hillary, Johnson, or Stein.

    • 1
Nov 11, 2016
adapt or die:

I think Trump won because he got more electoral votes than Hillary, Johnson, or Stein.

Nice tautology. But if there are enough faithless electors, think again buddy...

Nov 11, 2016

don't trust mainstream media or the polls. my eyes were kinda opened to this after hearing some political experts talk at a conference, explaining the path to a Trump victory.

Nov 16, 2016

Trump's data guy was interviewed by Megyn Kelly last night. He said he was 95% confident of Trump's victory by the Sunday before the election by reviewing non-polling data. He predicted Trump with 305 electoral votes (he called Trump to win Colorado and to lose Wisconsin, his 2 misses). We may be entering a new era of political analysis.

With that said, RealClearPolitics' Sean Trende analyzed the polls and determined that they weren't "off"--it was the interpretation of the polls that were off. For example, Clinton was up in the RCP average 1.9 points in Pennsylvania, well within the collective margins of error, and the political pundits and the Clinton campaign basically assumed Clinton had PA won. That level of undue pundintry certainty is what left so many people--myself included--in shock.

Nov 11, 2016

Trump won because he knew that a high voter turnout and winner in bigger margins with white voters without a college degree could easily win him the election. Even 538 did a project demonstrating the say each demographic has in an election, toy around with the values to see how shifting the vote and turnout of each demographic affects the election:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the...

Nov 11, 2016

To GeoffBlade: great article with much truth.
This was a tough campaign and election. With every election since Mr. Clinton I have learn to respect and appreciate my country. I'm pro USA and with that said I will continue to pray for those in authority, continue to educate myself for great employment and continue to work at being an asset to my country. USA , I love my country.

Nov 11, 2016

Barrel of Monkeys -Master Chimp

Nov 12, 2016

Fellows, it was all predicted 16 years ago in an episode of the Simpsons. Watch your Simpsons !

Nov 13, 2016

If you live in Maryland and voted/paid attention to the gubernatorial race ~2 years ago, you know exactly how/why Trump won.

Nov 16, 2016
    • 2
Nov 14, 2016
Nov 14, 2016
Nov 15, 2016
Jan 6, 2017
Jan 6, 2017