I am watching the Democratic Party trying to make sense of their election defeat. Broadly, this is taking three forms. One is protest, another electorate posturing, and the last policy evaluation.
There have been variou forms of protest. There have been demonstrations in some cities, generally those with larger democratic voting groups such as Portland, Austin, New York, etc. There was the whole Hamilton lecture flap, and a designer who refuses to design any evening wear for the First Lady. In passing, I wonder what the headlines would have been if a designer refused to work for the Obamas. That would likely have been construed as racism, while not working for Trump is political expression.
People have every right to protest in the United States. It's smart, however, to consider the impact of actions. Many people are put off by the protests, by signs that say "not my president", by posturing and lecturing from actors (whether at Hamilton, or those who said they would leave the US). The rioting is very off-putting, as are students who need a day or two off to 'cope' with the election. All these responses merely confirm the idea these people do not want to discuss or persuade but merely to stridently insist their ideas are not merely right, but moral. Anyone who disagrees is stupid, wrong, and Bad. That is not the way to encourage dialogue. I have read too many items where that author will not even think about talking or compromising. Not a wise stance.
There has been much written about Clinton winning the popular vote. Some have urged the electoral college to not vote for Trump, others urge Clinton to challenge the election results. Many are taking comfort in the popular vote win. Various memes have already been promulgated about the results- white backlash election, Trump won rural, uneducated whites, Clinton lost because of sexism.
It is revealing to take a look at Dave Leip's Atlas of American Elections. It is broadly regarded as one of the best data sources on US elections. Clinton won California by 29 points and New York by 21. Her margin in those two states totals 5.2 million votes. Some people are putting up the margins by which Clinton lost Wisconsin and a couple of other states, with the meme '112,000 votes elected Trump'. Looked at another way, however, Clinton lost the rest of the US put together by more than 3 million votes, since she currently leads by 2 million in the popular vote. If you look even deeper into the county data on California and New York, you will see that San Francisco, Los Angeles and greater New York voted overwhelmingly for Clinton (she won 88% of the Bronx and 86% of Manhattan). In much of the rest of the country she lost badly, including many counties that once voted democratic.
Some have called for the elimination of the electoral college. There is even one such article in The Atlantic, which ought to know better, claiming the whole point of the electoral college was to prevent demagoguery. Well, that was one purpose, but the greater one, made perfectly explicit in the Federalist Papers, was to ensure the president represented the whole country, not just the then-largest states of Virginia and New York. Just winning a few large cities in a few large states should not make anyone president of the entire United States. Claiming such is just a different way of saying 'we are sophisticated and important, and you are not'. Again, not a wise or helpful stance.
The memes about demographics are also wrong. If anyone takes a look at the data, this was not a white election or a white win for Trump. Whites made up 70% of the electorate, down from 72% in 2012. Romney got 60% of them in 2012. Trump got.....58%. Trump did worse than Romney among whites, not that the media will point this out. Where most of the poll models were wrong was on turnout by blacks and hispanics. Black turnout was down 2% from the models, and hispanic was down slightly as well (asain was up 2%). Among these groups, Trump did much better than any Republican in 20 years, winning 8% of the black vote and 29% of the hispanic. That was his win, right there. The only hispanics who voted heavily for Clinton were in Miami and New York, another confirmation of the limited geographic appeal of the Democratic message.
People don't like being put down, being told what to think and feel, or being taken for granted. Clinton and the Democrats did all three, then blame white voters for losing. Again, not a wise stance or one that leads to insight.
Some are looking at policy. As one article put it, while Trump visited coal country, and promised to support clean coal, Clinton made an offhand remark about miners losing their jobs, and never came to West Virginia, eastern Kentucky or even Wisconsin. Voters were taken for granted while the Democratic Party went on talking about inclusion, diversity, bathrooms and race. Trump talked about jobs for people who had lost them, or for whom they were threatened, and about income inequality. Not as an abstract class division but as a practical issue. Most people realize that government cannot, absent confiscatory taxation, make the poor richer by taxing the wealthy. They do understand that wealth is built by productivity and earning. There has been much quiet resentment of college students needing safe spaces in the name of diversity, as opposed to workers who come home sore, tired, and badly paid. It is the latter to whom Trump spoke, and who voted for him. There are approximately 491,000 gay marriages in the US, and by the most generous estimate 1.4 million transgendered. This totals 2.7 million people, or less than 1% of the total US population. Talking within a few large cities about equality for tiny slices of the US population is most definitely not the way to appeal to the country as a whole, let alone efforts to change English pronouns to accommodate limited sensibilities. I don't even care if this is moral high ground. It is not winning electoral strategy.
Just as the Republican Party would do well to stop talking about abortion, Democrats would do well to walk among the voters they have been putting down for years, and see their lives, and feel their pain. Policy works best from the ground up, not from the top down. Trying to impose values and ideas on people who are struggling is not only pointless, it is condescending and out of touch.
It is damaging to keep protesting and posturing. If the Democratic Party would seriously consider the broader country, and look at policy rather than demographics, people would vote for them. And I, who have voted for exactly 3 Republicans for president in my entire life, might well be one of them.
Ted
There have been variou forms of protest. There have been demonstrations in some cities, generally those with larger democratic voting groups such as Portland, Austin, New York, etc. There was the whole Hamilton lecture flap, and a designer who refuses to design any evening wear for the First Lady. In passing, I wonder what the headlines would have been if a designer refused to work for the Obamas. That would likely have been construed as racism, while not working for Trump is political expression.
People have every right to protest in the United States. It's smart, however, to consider the impact of actions. Many people are put off by the protests, by signs that say "not my president", by posturing and lecturing from actors (whether at Hamilton, or those who said they would leave the US). The rioting is very off-putting, as are students who need a day or two off to 'cope' with the election. All these responses merely confirm the idea these people do not want to discuss or persuade but merely to stridently insist their ideas are not merely right, but moral. Anyone who disagrees is stupid, wrong, and Bad. That is not the way to encourage dialogue. I have read too many items where that author will not even think about talking or compromising. Not a wise stance.
There has been much written about Clinton winning the popular vote. Some have urged the electoral college to not vote for Trump, others urge Clinton to challenge the election results. Many are taking comfort in the popular vote win. Various memes have already been promulgated about the results- white backlash election, Trump won rural, uneducated whites, Clinton lost because of sexism.
It is revealing to take a look at Dave Leip's Atlas of American Elections. It is broadly regarded as one of the best data sources on US elections. Clinton won California by 29 points and New York by 21. Her margin in those two states totals 5.2 million votes. Some people are putting up the margins by which Clinton lost Wisconsin and a couple of other states, with the meme '112,000 votes elected Trump'. Looked at another way, however, Clinton lost the rest of the US put together by more than 3 million votes, since she currently leads by 2 million in the popular vote. If you look even deeper into the county data on California and New York, you will see that San Francisco, Los Angeles and greater New York voted overwhelmingly for Clinton (she won 88% of the Bronx and 86% of Manhattan). In much of the rest of the country she lost badly, including many counties that once voted democratic.
Some have called for the elimination of the electoral college. There is even one such article in The Atlantic, which ought to know better, claiming the whole point of the electoral college was to prevent demagoguery. Well, that was one purpose, but the greater one, made perfectly explicit in the Federalist Papers, was to ensure the president represented the whole country, not just the then-largest states of Virginia and New York. Just winning a few large cities in a few large states should not make anyone president of the entire United States. Claiming such is just a different way of saying 'we are sophisticated and important, and you are not'. Again, not a wise or helpful stance.
The memes about demographics are also wrong. If anyone takes a look at the data, this was not a white election or a white win for Trump. Whites made up 70% of the electorate, down from 72% in 2012. Romney got 60% of them in 2012. Trump got.....58%. Trump did worse than Romney among whites, not that the media will point this out. Where most of the poll models were wrong was on turnout by blacks and hispanics. Black turnout was down 2% from the models, and hispanic was down slightly as well (asain was up 2%). Among these groups, Trump did much better than any Republican in 20 years, winning 8% of the black vote and 29% of the hispanic. That was his win, right there. The only hispanics who voted heavily for Clinton were in Miami and New York, another confirmation of the limited geographic appeal of the Democratic message.
People don't like being put down, being told what to think and feel, or being taken for granted. Clinton and the Democrats did all three, then blame white voters for losing. Again, not a wise stance or one that leads to insight.
Some are looking at policy. As one article put it, while Trump visited coal country, and promised to support clean coal, Clinton made an offhand remark about miners losing their jobs, and never came to West Virginia, eastern Kentucky or even Wisconsin. Voters were taken for granted while the Democratic Party went on talking about inclusion, diversity, bathrooms and race. Trump talked about jobs for people who had lost them, or for whom they were threatened, and about income inequality. Not as an abstract class division but as a practical issue. Most people realize that government cannot, absent confiscatory taxation, make the poor richer by taxing the wealthy. They do understand that wealth is built by productivity and earning. There has been much quiet resentment of college students needing safe spaces in the name of diversity, as opposed to workers who come home sore, tired, and badly paid. It is the latter to whom Trump spoke, and who voted for him. There are approximately 491,000 gay marriages in the US, and by the most generous estimate 1.4 million transgendered. This totals 2.7 million people, or less than 1% of the total US population. Talking within a few large cities about equality for tiny slices of the US population is most definitely not the way to appeal to the country as a whole, let alone efforts to change English pronouns to accommodate limited sensibilities. I don't even care if this is moral high ground. It is not winning electoral strategy.
Just as the Republican Party would do well to stop talking about abortion, Democrats would do well to walk among the voters they have been putting down for years, and see their lives, and feel their pain. Policy works best from the ground up, not from the top down. Trying to impose values and ideas on people who are struggling is not only pointless, it is condescending and out of touch.
It is damaging to keep protesting and posturing. If the Democratic Party would seriously consider the broader country, and look at policy rather than demographics, people would vote for them. And I, who have voted for exactly 3 Republicans for president in my entire life, might well be one of them.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment