Eventually the only answer is more redistribution. Those factory jobs aren't ever coming back.

I haven't seen this posted here yet, so apologies if it was:

Dear Democrats, Read This If You Do Not Understand Why Trump Won

I don't agree with him saying Hillary stole the nomination, but just having the discussion comes across poorly. Here's something that a lot of people are missing out on.

"I took it upon myself to understand Trump, and his supporters. What I found was millions of great Americans who had been disenfranchised, normal people like you and I, who did not recover from the Great Recession. They’re pissed off about Obama Care, endless wars, trade deals that have killed jobs, higher taxes, a rigged economy–and, they are not wrong."

I actually agree with you to an extent, though we can do better on our trade deals. It's a tough situation.

Well thanks.

That's mighty kind of you & all but, honestly, I'm okay. I've gotten a reasonable amount of credit on occasion.



:D

I'm a big free trade proponent (have been ever since Al Gore debated, and took apart, Ross Perot and then cemented by college), so I'd rather not see those get attacked ;).

I've been pretty open about my faith on this board before. I even once started a thread about Roe v. Wade to explain my pro-life position at the time. Here is a post I wrote on FB to explain how that faith has wavered and what this election meant for it....

I have been struggling with my faith for a long time. It has been so hard for me to reconcile what I believe with the hateful words and demeaning actions of so many Christians, when I always thought the cornerstone of that faith was to help people who are suffering and lift them up.

And now we have a man who, based on everything I thought I knew about my faith, should be opposed at every turn and held up as an example of who not to be. I can't imagine when I was going to Sunday School as a kid that someone would say, one day you should support a man who thinks grabbing women by the pussy is okay, who thinks fat shaming women is okay, who thinks Hispanics can't be unbiased, who has repeatedly insulted and belittled others, and I could go on.

And yet, people of my faith overwhelmingly put this man in charge. In their bid for secular power, they selected an immoral, hateful person for the highest office in the land. Congratulations. You got the man you wanted, but you've probably lost me for good.

I was just patting my back. I figured that was nicer than "I told you so" or, what I really wanted to do, which is HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Anecdotal but ...

a friend of mine outwest -- late 40s female -- just had a bad encounter with some {cough} ruffians from a nearby HS. A dozen or so roaming her residential neighborhood shouting profanities relating to the election, she asked that they curb the f-bombs becuase of the small children playing on the street at the time.

She got C-bombed and f-bitch bombed as a response.

The irony? She's a left-leaning Catholic guilt mixed (at best) voter that's all about social progressivism.

Yeah, Ds ... you have your own set of faction issues to deal with.

But, but but Dems arent racist or misogynists. Thats just you bad non-dems.

:(

I understand the impulse and the feeling, but as Bucc told me, remember that your faith is in Christ. And while we are Christ's Church, His hands and feet on this planet, we are far from perfect. And when some of us speak hate and anger as if it is from God, they are not speaking for the God that you know and love. Anyways, all that is to say, you may need some time in the wilderness and to search for other communities and people who you find are living out God's mission in a better way.

I wish you the best and pray for your journey.

Yep. If I lived in a state with any of the Senate GOP leadership, I'd donate to their opposition every chance I got when they came up for re-election. I don't understand how anyone with a high-school education isn't an originalist; it's as fundamental a building block of western civilization as there is. The Republicans used to stand for such things, but they haven't for quite some time. 'Advise and consent' is not the same thing as 'stonewall until there is a more favorable political environment'. A continuation of the pattern of Congress not functioning as intended, and while I certainly think Trump's nominees will be better than Clinton's would have been, this sort of scorched-earth stuff is never helpful in the long run. The very legitimacy of the idea of the rule of law is undermined when said law is disregarded because you don't like the outcome.


I don't think I've ever agreed with you more completely. Any candidate who honestly said it how it is economically in a third-wave society would get annihilated.


This makes me sad as well. It's already been discussed some pages back which you may or may not have seen, but I think there's a distinction here with people falling into the lesser of two evils trap. A lot of those who voted for Trump don't see him as a good or honorable man, a role model, etc. -- many were voting against Clinton and what she and the Democratic party stand for, rather than for Trump. That's not nearly good enough for me, but I do think it is important to recognize that a vote for Trump was not at all necessarily a vote for misogyny, racism, sexism, xenophobia, hatred, etc.

As a good example of those who resisted the trap is one of the leaders I respect most, Al Moehler. Here's an appearance he made on CNN a few weeks ago: Mohler discusses Trump and evangelicals on CNN Tonight — October 11, 2016 - YouTube

The only other thing I can say that might potentially be useful is that I hope you find a place where you are able to separate, painful as it often is, faith in God from faith in those claiming his Name and often not displaying many fruits of it. I hope you are able, ultimately at some point, to not allow them to define your spirituality.

Not related anything really but as I am reading this thread, the mental image that I have is something from an old gang movie where moderates are trying their best to discuss things in as peaceful a manner as possible. The extremes shouting from a bit further back shouting profanities. Then, the moderates rolling their eyes with a thought bubble above their head stating "This is not helping."

No judgement on the positions being taken. Just sharing the image. Carry on with the serious discussion.

This sounds a little like hyperbole, but the Common Law (from our legal system arises) always had kind of a law building upon itself type of legal analysis. Originalism (as in the originalist textual analysis favored by Scalia) is actually somewhat new a judicial philosophy to be honest.


Yup. And so folks promise the moon unfortunately.


Perhaps not, but there were plenty of faith leaders who didn't act in the 'nose holding' but were very, very pro Trump. And plenty poo-poohed all the things in the list you said. And that's distressing for a lot of people of faith who weren't, say, white evangelicals (who came out in overwhelming support for Trump).


Another Southern Baptist who was excellent on this was Russell Moore.

And the Republicans label everyone a socialist. The point was it wouldn't have mattered if they attacked Bernie for being a socialist because he was offering something different and that's what people wanted in this election.

I am too, and think Trump's idea of tax imports at 35% to be the dumbest economic idea ever. However, one has to look as to when Carrier in Indiana moved their work to a factory in Mexico and understand why people are worried, along with the auto manufacturing plants opening up in places like China (Volvo and Cadillac are going to import some models from China, with Honda and Ford importing, or will be, some models from Mexico) and we need to figure out how make our manufacturing industry more competitive.

I tend to fall in the Milton Friedman camp of thinking when it comes to government and economics. Let me ask you this, and this tends to be more of philosophical approach, does free trade mean fair trade? Are they mutually exclusive? How does one deal with currency manipulation, which China does?

I wasn't being hyperbolic at all actually :). We're definitely going to disagree here. There are only two issues that I've never understood or held a view contrary to what I currently believe. This is one of them. It's quite prevalent in many of the writings we have from the colonial era, both those who wrote the Constitution and early interpreters such as Joseph Story, the first chief justice.

Bernie got screwed by the party he was representing.

I think it would have been a closer election with Sanders winning.

I have no clue how many voted. But if Sanders ran, every under 25 would have voted.

Well not Democrats apparently ;). Or at least not in the early half of the year.


Well, our manufacturing industry is competitive, just not necessarily in labor intensive jobs. And the factories first moved from the Rust Belt to the South (when NAFTA passed it had already been named the Rust Belt after all).

There are, in fact, a number of auto plants opening up down South. Mercedes Benz just opened a brand new one in the Atlanta Metro region. And BMW has a relatively new plant in South Carolina. I think someone is opening one in Alabama soon as well.


I don't necessarily think free trade means fair trade. However, I do think that free trade tends to produce far more benefits for the country that engages in it (I think of the Corn Laws in the UK in the 1800s for instance) regardless of the laws in other countries. Currency manipulation is going to happen regardless - heck, countries pin their currency to the dollar all the time. The way to deal with China was... well, the TPP. Economically isolate them a bit and then use that against them... you know, like making a good deal ;).

Has anyone seen a state by state voting comparison in hard vote numbers from 2012 to 2016?

As I write this, Clinton is just over 60 million votes nationwide. Trump is just under 60 million. In 2012, Obama had about 62.5 million votes nationwide, and Romney had just under 60 million.

So what I'm curious about is where Trump actually gained votes. I've seen Florida where they both beat the 2012 vote totals. I'm sure Trump performed better than Romney on a hard vote basis in Pennsylvania, but I'm not sure about Michigan and Wisconsin where it could just be less votes for Clinton.

The point is I'm not sure it's one thing about being an outsider and a great uprising. Nationwide, Trump was about the same as Romney. Clinton didn't turn her traditional supporters out. To give JiMGA credit, it was about turn out, but more that Clinton didn't get it and Trump and the RNC held serve.

I think Bernie would have drove out the voters that didn't vote, who tended to be younger, and quite frankly, the Bernie supporters that are pretty pissed off at the DNC and hate Hillary.

But then completely different track was undertaken Chief Justice John Marshall. The writers of the Constitution were all over the map on it, FWIW. Plenty were happy with Marshall's ruling in Marbury v. Madison and said that's what they intended and plenty were not.

As for Story, he'd be using textualism... as originalism wouldn't have made that much sense as a philosophy at that time ;).

The hyperbole is not understanding how civil society can function without it (does any other legal system in the world use it?) or that intelligent people would consider it not useful for jurisprudence.

That's exactly right and almost as unpopular as speaking the truth about social security's solvency over the next 20 years. Neither truth will ever see the light of day in a presidential campaign, though.

Some states were up, others down. I know in Wisconsin specifically it was poor dem turnout that turned the tide, Trump actually got about the same or slightly fewer than Romney. In other states such as Florida turnout was higher everywhere.

Yes, I know it was up some places and down others. I'm looking for a side by side comparison if anyone has seen something like that.

And every single rational thinking adult in the country would have turned out to stop that batshit crazy son of a bitch.

The win for Trump would have been larger, but with a different final electoral map.

Mercedes Benz just moved their North American headquarters to the Metro Atlanta area from New Jersey. They're opening a plant in Alabama. Volvo is also opening a factory just outside of Charleston in South Carolina for one of their models. I do think regulations and taxes on US businesses doesn't help, but that's a liberal vs. conservative debate that won't end in anything good.

I agree with TPP as being a beachhead into the Asia-Pacific region and being a counter to China, especially since TPP may be the most comprehensive trade agreements being proposed. I agree as well on Free Trade outweighing the benefits.

My views on Mexico are a bit different than what Trump thinks. For me, it's starts with the existing philosophy on War on Drugs. Figuring out to help Mexico, and to an extent, the rest of Latin America, and the change the existing control of a lot of Mexico that is held by the cartels would go a long way to making Mexico and Latin America a stronger and freer economic and political region.

I was lumping them together for sake of making a simpler statement. Scalia was a textualist not an originalist as well, but that's a rabbit hole probably not worth going down ...


Because it's part and parcel of the very concept of the rule of law. The entire process of law-making inherently includes the assumption that a law's meaning is reliable and stable until revoked or superceded. Without it, the division of powers means nothing, and the law is wholly dependent on the whims of judges and justices, thus making it not law in any meaningful sense at all, since it may very well not mean tomorrow anything like what it means today.

I found an article that did a few states, but not all 50.
fwiw
UPDATED: Obama 2012 Would've Beaten Trump 2016 | National Review

To this point:
BMW has been in operation 20 years now in SC. Every BMW SUV in the world is made in Spartanburg, SC...including those shipped to Germany.

Mercedes Benz is finishing a huge facility in Charleston, SC currently.

Volvo Automotive is currently building a manufacturing plant in Ridgeville, SC.

Kia now builds upwards of 90% of their North American cars in Alabama.

All Nissan trucks and SUVs (and several of their cars)are built in TN.

Etc. The narrative that US manufacturing is dead is pre-mature at best. Globaly the US has some of the highest regarded manufacturing of quality goods in most industries.

Small consumer electronics are dominated by Asian manufacturing, but that has as much to do with the allowable lead usages (in solder and bonding) and their associated health risks as it does pure economics.

I'm guessing its the lack of unions, lower taxes and fees, and reduced regulations down south compared to the Rust Belt/Northern region that is driving this.

There's still a shit-ton of American factory workers in food manufacturing that everybody tends to ignore for whatever reasons.

Thanks. Using this and piecing some stuff together from other sites, you can quickly put together a story.

Trump was down nearly 2 million votes versus Romney in California (this comes with a huge caveat as California may still have votes left to be counted). To get to the same number of total Romney votes he had big gains in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina. A modest gain in Michigan. By contrast, Clinton underperformed versus the 2012 numbers massively in those states.

Lower wages.
Cheaper land.
Less missed work days due to weather. (LOL)

Yep, I assumed it was the cost of living difference. The south is the perfect place for building new factories and business.

So yeah, about that assumption.... 😉

Because a lot of them are immigrants.

Yep, and regulations and friendlier business climate. Also, the legacy costs are big difference between US manufactures and the foreign manufactures.

Gee I wonder why people might scared.

Heh. Not the first to speculate this, Howard.

Howard Stern Suggests Donald Trump’s Campaign Was For NBC Leverage

If this was the type of election anywhere from 1800-1864, one or both would have been killed, and likely the running mates and their families as well.

Sanders is the most utterly vile candidate to ever fill out election paperwork. Truly, certifiably batshit crazy. And evil incarnate on top of it.

An adequate mental health system in the country would have had him committed long ago. He's not sane enough to walk the streets.

I'd have gladly died just so I could register to vote for Hilary twice in Illinois against that waste of fucking oxygen. Hell, I'd take Farrahkhan and Sharpton ahead of him.

But when the right uses crazy college kids for their narrative, it doesn't mean anything because they're naive knuckleheads and those kids aren't representative of the left.

There are going to be people who take advantage and feel emboldened from the election of Trump. It's important to make the distinction between those idiots and the conservative middle Americans. It's the same thing with the looting and rioting when protesting happens.

No kidding.

excerpt

It is important that the conservative middle Americans call this shit out, rather than just sitting fat and happy because they "won."

But first tackle the demand [for drugs in the US] then the supply. But unfortunately, the US seems to be going in the opposite direction.

It seems like turnout matters a lot in these elections. Trump didn't get good turnout. But Clinton was far worse. Decent chance Bernie motivated Democrats to show up.

Kids being assholes is not news. They are giant sociopaths until their brain develops.

What is going on with the vote count in Michigan?

I think that whole, Bernie would motivate more Dems to show up is more hopeful than real. The guy did end up losing the primary by quite a bit and, no, it wasn't because it was 'rigged'. He couldn't motivate Dems to come out to beat Clinton. The youth showed up to rallies, but not the voting booth.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

He tried to unify the democratic base by telling them to go vote Hillary. They either gave up on him for selling out or they really hated Hillary.

I don't think that's quite right. For instance, there were 1.2 million voters in the Dem MI primary. Hillary got 2.2 million on election night.

How do you do this?


I would even add there are quite a few Bernie supporters I've read that are smirking a bit at the failure of Hillary and the Democratic party.


I can't imagine that democrats would have come out and voted for Bernie, especially against Trump. The base would have fallen in line. Didn't Bernie do far better with African-Americans than Hillary? Bernie also had a message that appealed to the white working class, which could have helped act a firewall against Trump's move into that demographic.

Clinton destroyed Sanders with African-Americans (76% to 23%), it's why she won the nomination. The margins in a some of the southern states were ridiculous - that created the lead that Sanders could never come back from. That's the only reason I think Sanders might have also lost against Trump. His base doesn't vote much (though they like to protest AFTER the election), and he completely failed to connect with black voters. It's possible that Sanders could have done better in the upper midwest though, he beat Clinton in Michigan and Wisconsin.

How Hillary Clinton Won the Democratic Nomination Over Bernie Sanders - WSJ.com

Heavens no, you've got that backwards.

His inability to attract black voters in the primary is a huge part of what got him beat.

How Bernie Sanders lost the black vote | Fusion

The thing is, Jon, when this is how you describe everybody to the left of you - and it is - it's either a massive, massive case of projection, or words have no meaning to you.

So which is it - do you just like to hear your gums flap, or shall I start calling you Your Infernal Majesty?

Hyperbole just causes the words people use to lose all meaning.

Clinton actually won Cobb County, GA. It's a metro-Atlanta county and the center of Newt Gingrich's old political base. A Democrat hadn't won this county since 1976. Yes, Carter didn't even win it in his own re-election bid. Bill Clinton lost it by 20 both times. Gore and Kerry lost it by more than 23 points. Obama narrowed the gap, losing by 9 to McCain and 13 to Romney. Yet, Hillary ended up swinging it by 15 pts for a 2 pt win.

By the way, this is the type of place where Bernie would've done much worse than Hillary. And while GA wouldn't have mattered, I think it would be true of suburbs in those rust belt states. My guess is Bernie would've gotten typical Democratic (maybe Obama 08) numbers with the white working class, but would've gotten hammered in the suburban areas, where people would've been bombarded with scary stories of his socialist tax plans.

Thank you and Molson for the information. It's quite interesting then that the African-American vote was down about a 1 million in this election cycle. If Clinton crushed Sanders in that demographic, then what would have rallied them to polls?

I hesitate to put this here but we have a family member coming to stay with us this weekend who knows the Clinton's really well and is still on the periphery of the political scene - I'm absolutely fascinated to get her take on this mess. Seems like anyone off the street with a passing interest in politics could probably have won this election for the Dems, just an awfully run campaign from top to bottom.

She's just an unlikable candidate with equally-damaging baggage against is a master of branding himself and opponents (good and bad). The fact that she hired DWS right after she stepped down as DNC after the WikiLeaks dump didn't help optics-wise. I also think when Clinton made the deplorables comment, that was her "47%" moment was really the start of the end of her chances.

I'm not a fan of Robert Reich, but I thought his piece was good as well.
Robert Reich: What Donald Trump's Election Really Means | Alternet

This isn't really something serious, but I got a good laugh out of the thread. It's from the Crystal Palace forum, on who would make a better Palace Manager, Hilary or Trump

https://www.holmesdale.net/page.php?...=163461&page=1

Full spreadsheet. Interesting as the California count continues to come in, it looks like the total votes cast will exceed 2012. Turnout will still be down as a percentage because of increased numbers of eligible voters.

2016 National Popular Vote Tracker

Michelle, maybe. Possibly Beyonce.

Other than that, or a promise of large cash "reparations", most likely nothing IMO.

That's where you're wrong. There's a lot of people who voted for Trump that would have voted for Bernie if he was the other option. No way that Trump wins against him.

Good post by Mike Rowe on the election results:

https://www.facebook.com/TheRealMike...853343591472:0

Ouch. Didn't see this posted yet.

Stephen A Smith definitely has that "Love him or hate him" mentality on lock down. Nobody in sports commentary can baffle me with his words on one day and make me cheer the next quite like Stephen can.

I think it's also one of the most sincere commentaries I've ever seen from him as well. Sometimes, it seems like he's just trying to get a rise out of people. It's pretty obvious in this instance that he's legitimately pissed that he didn't go vote.

I think the cheering moments are probably under the "stopped clock rule" but yeah, he probably does as wide a range of reactions from me as any personality I can think of.

To the point that I occasionally wonder if he does it intentionally, whether it's all real or if he tries to bewilder/shock/surprise.

I ignore ESPN these days, but whenever I hear him say stuff when it makes news, I tend to either love or hate it.

Yes, that is an excellent read. A more intelligent and better written piece than the ones from that shrill Sanders opinionist that I posted earlier, but both were saying the same thing.

Dan Lebatard recounted something on his radio show today that I think answers your question. When Skip Bayless was still at ESPN he went to a family function where his 9-year-old nephew was disappointed that Skip was there but "the muppet" wasn't. SAS is so over the top that he's playing a character that even children don't think is real.

Wait Kaepernick didn't vote? Doesn't he know he can write in someone?

Edit: You're also voting for your local politicians too...

I posted all the things that were on his ballot a few pages ago, but ya, he skipped a chance to weigh in on some state ballot initiatives involving increased school funding, widening the scope of parole for nonviolent offenders, legalizing marijuana, all things that speak to the causes he proclaims to have, all things that can help keep law enforcement in check in various ways, and all things that can strengthen a community and reduce prison populations. Not only did he not vote, he said he didn't even pay attention to how this stuff came out.

Edit: Not only is he indifferent, he also shit on the people who supported him and do care about this stuff.

There were also criminal justice items on the ballot. I defended Kaepernick before, but fuck him.

I fall solidly in line with this opinion, I have alternately loved him and wished he would STFU and vanish, and while I think he exaggerates his level of indignity at times, I also tend to think he shoots from the heart and allows whatever emotion he is feeling to flow for the most part.

He is definitely in the 'shock jock' category, but overall I like him and sometimes even find him refreshing.

Apparently Jay Cutler voted for Trump LOL

An interesting NY Times article on how Bill Clinton desperately wanted to do more campaigning among white working class voters, but the campaign folk (mostly the campaign manager) said that data was pushing them to suburban voters:

Log In - New York Times

Another interesting article is that when all is said and done, Clinton will likely have a substantial popular vote advantage (2 mil votes and 1.5 in %) and what does that mean for the future (even though that won't mean anything this year)

Log In - New York Times

Here's a Politico article with similar items mentioned.

Here's Robert Reich echoing those sentiments, and going hard on the DNC and RNC for trying to push pre-ordained candidates down people's throats.

Additionally, the Harvard Business Review and Mike Rowe each do a great job of distinguishing between the working class and the poor.

I think the interesting thing in the Times article (and further down in Politico article) was how much Bill Clinton was really really pushing this. Even doing events on his own in the Upper Midwest. And how following the data screwed the campaign.

Edit: I see the Politico article talks about that further down the article.

Seth MacFarlane had an interesting take:

Just a thought as my brain attempts to process HOW. pic.twitter.com/YlJA1Z5qOQ

— Seth MacFarlane (@SethMacFarlane) November 9, 2016

Basically, the left had spent the last 10 years telling us how every conservative was a racist if they wanted to protect the border or weren't all in on BLM, a bigot if they weren't in favor of transgender bathrooms and a misogynist if they weren't pro-choice. So, when the real "wolf" showed up in Trump who actually demonstrated these characteristics, the public had grown tired of the tactic and some felt "Yeah, but that's what you say about all republicans". I'm not sure if it's accurate as I don't know what exactly middle America was thinking, but it is an interesting take.

Posting the pic one time probably would have sufficed there, Arlie.

Sorry, was hard to see on my phone. Thanks for the heads up and I just edited

U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell says Democrats missed signs of discontent in Michigan | MLive.com

House Democrat Debbie Dingell of Michigan says she saw the Trump wave coming and tried to warn the party.

But Seth MacFarland engaged i these actions himself right along side with Hollywood. Michael Moore is only leftist Hollywood guy who saw it and stay in-touch with what was happening outside of their Hollywood, coastal bubble. Why do you think a lot of Americans have a distant for the media and Hollywood? They live in their worlds and try to tell the rest of the country, and frankly, the world, what to do. You can't even have an argument/debate with liberals without being called something or having a "Do As I say, I know what's best for you" attitude. If you're going to preach tolerance and open minded, practice it. Doesn't excuse Trump, and it doesn't excuse everyone else.

When did Seth MacFarlane engage in these attitudes? The fact that he's still involved in Family Guy seems to indicate the opposite.

I love that Michael Moore is now everything that's right with the Democratic Party and we were dumb for not listening to him when before this election, he was bandied about as everything that's wrong with the Democratic Party.

Crazy. Does he still live in Michigan? He does seem like the person who gets out of his bubble and in middle and lower class America.

All this talk about "oh, we saw the giant wave coming" is starting to get tiresome.

We get it. Some white people were more motivated than usual. That seems to have ended up carrying the day.

But it's not like the country came out 80-20 for Trump. We went into Tuesday thinking that Clinton would win with something like 3% more votes than Trump, and in the end it's going to be she won something like 1% more votes. Factor in all the people who just didn't bother to vote, and you have to get to something like 200 eligible voters before the count of Clinton voters and Trump voters is separated by a full person. This wasn't a tidal wave. It was a subtle creep.

Right...Michael Moore (or whomever) correctly detected the anger or whatever that drove Trump voters. But let's not pretend he saw that level of insight. Trump won some states by a percent or two that we thought he'd lose by a percent or two. Skinheads didn't take over. This wasn't a massive system shock.

The difference in what happened and what everyone thought was about to happen was basically imperceptible at any casual talk-on-the-street level.

Not every conservative. They were calling moderates and liberals racist for not agreeing with them on everything too.

It's not just the white folk though (who had a lower turnout than in 2012). Trump also got more percentage of black and latino votes than Romney did. Younger voters also seemed more likely to turn to a 3rd party as well.

White people voted for Trump at the same level they voted for Romney. I think the narrative comes from the left that just wants to blame everything on white people.

An under discussed phenomenon.

Bigger raw numbers or just greater percent given lower turnout? (Yeah, I was too lazy to open the link a page or so back.)

100% agreed. Let's not act like Trump won by like 10% in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania here. Subtle creep from the polls is right. I'm scared that the Dems are going to buy into the narrative and go full on "we need to go completely after the white working class to the detriment of all else" rather than realizing how close it was.

You sure are scared a lot.

Working class voters is supposed to be the Democrat's base. Why wouldn't you go hard after them? Catering to some coastal elites like they have been isn't going to win you an electoral victory.

Calling bullshit on this. I've heard this narrative from Republicans as much as Democrats.

Clinton's 37% is the lowest showing among the white vote for any candidate since Mondale in 1984. And while Trump did slightly better percentage-wise among Hispanics, Hispanic turnout was up, so Clinton actually built up an increased vote margin among that group.

Nate Silver explains it well: