No this race was not an endorsement of racism

Politics & Elections
61

Sure, that stuff is for-real no-foolin’ racist. But I’ve heard oh-so-many danged innocuous remarks get falsely tagged as “racist” that the actual racists have long been lumped in with perfectly good people who aren’t in fact racist.

If the reception to Trump has correctly emboldened all the folks who’ve done nothing wrong and gotten called “racist”, then a spillover effect seems to be that – at the same stroke – it’s incorrectly, and horrifyingly, emboldened the folks who are in fact racist. Because, to the extent that Trump supporters are all said to be racists, vindicating the ones who aren’t seems to sloppily vindicate the ones who are.

62

To my observations Trump was openly xenophobic, racist, intolerant, and misogynistic, openly appealed to those elements and openly incorporated those elements into his campaign machine. I cannot see how that is even debatable. You want to argue that he did not really mean it? Whatev’s.

But he did not get any more votes as a result. Maybe just a few less.

Those who voted for him for that more explicit alt-right embrace would have voted for Bush or Rubio or Cruz or even Kasich just as well. A handful more? Maybe.

Most of those that would have voted for Bush or Rubio or Cruz or even Kasich did not let that alt-Right embrace deter them. They voted for him often despite that because they knew he’d still be much more likely than Clinton to result in a Supreme Court of the composition they want and in tax policy they want. A handful or so stayed home. Few switched over.

But most importantly, that alt-Right embrace, that more explicit appeal to xenophobia, racism, intolerance, and misogyny, was not enough to get those who voted Obama, who would have voted for Obama again if they could have, but who were just not excited by Clinton, to vote. In the face of that many good people looked and did nothing. Voting against all that Trump expressed and represented was not enough to vote for someone who failed to excite them. Preventing a Supreme Court that will reverse many decades of progress, preventing tearing up of climate change accords, preventing the reversal of Obama accomplishments that most actually approve of, moving gradually but steadily forward towards a more equitable society for all of us, was not enough to motivate bothering to vote if the candidate was not cool enough of a thing to do.

The Democratic coalition consists of too many pathetic lazy ass people with no focus on what actually matters. Many of them whined about Obama not delivering even as they sat on their asses during midterms and thereby helped create a Congress that obstructed him. And now they will whine about Trump being not their president even as many of them did not bother to vote for the positive alternative.

I’m not the one who is going suffer most from Trump. Hell, so far his election has been good for my portfolio in particular and I apparently have time to gradually move some into cash in anticipation of the recession I expect he will trigger. Global climate change? Sucks for my adult children and future grandkids and the planet but I personally will be fine. The racist shit? Not currently mainly coming after me.

The ones who will suffer the most often did not vote.

63

You said:

[quote=“DSeid, post:1, topic:771456”]

It was the absence of its rejection.

“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” -John Stuart Mill 1867 (multiple attributions of similar forms).

Trump did not gain new support or create a new coalition. He got fewer votes than Romney did. Turnout was decreased for this GOP candidate. Mostly he got the same people who were voting with full knowledge of what past dog whistles were and who were okay voting when they were stated more explicitly, whether they agreed with them or not. Some were voting racism like they always have, some just GOP, some (few I think given Obama’s approval ratings) for “anything is better than what I got”, some out of Clinton dislike. Meanwhile some stayed home and some voted Johnson.

[QUOTE]

You said:

[QUOTE]

It’s quite clear from the context you were attributing the absence of rejection of racism (and thus Trump) to voters staying home as well as those who voted for Johnson.

Even if it was about 50/50, that just means Trump would have performed about the same except both of them would have gotten more raw votes.

So? The question is what is the core of libertarian ideology or else you could say the Nazis were just like Democrats because both supported heavy infrastructure spending. And the answer is that the core of libertarian ideology is economic free markets not social liberalism. We see this in the fact that libertarians are disproportionately the same demographic as Republicans, namely upper middle-class (and above), relatively well-educated white men as well as in the fact that most prominent libertarians (Ron and Rand Paul, Gary Johnson, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand) have far more links to the GOP then the Democratic Party.

64

A good blog post by John Scalzi about this – the Cinemax Theory of Racism. Here’s the summary: “If Trump’s administration indulges in the racism, sexism and religious and other bigotries that Trump and his people have already promised to engage in, we can assume it’s because his voters are just fine with that racism, sexism and religious and other bigotries — even if they claim to have voted for him for other reasons entirely. After all, Trump didn’t hide these things about himself, or try to sneak these plans in by a side door. They were in full view this entire time. If you vote for a bigot who has bigoted plans, you need to be aware of what that says about you, and your complicity in those plans.”

One intriguing comment: "When his administration takes actions that are racist or roll back anti-discriminatory policies (which seems more likely to happen than not), THAT is what you voted for if you voted for Trump. If he appoints Supreme Court justices who decide cases in ways that negatively affect the rights of minority populations and women, you will have voted for those justices to be appointed. If he signs an executive order that requires all Americans who are Muslim to register, as he has spoken of doing, you will have voted for that.

Recognizing your part in the actions he and his administration will take, what will you do to protect the rights of your fellow Americans so that only the parts of his program that you want get enacted? Anything? Wring your hands? Rationalize that just registering doesn’t cause Muslims any harm (even though you know, because you took history in high school, that in Europe during WW II, at first Jews were required only to register)? Will you work hard to make sure the president you voted for does not do that? If not, why not?"

65

It is true that many who voted for Trump, previously voted for Obama. So many of them are NOT personally racist. But they ARE willfully ignoring how their vote IS enabling real racist actions and policies. They are personally affected by the relative decline in the US as a global economic power – that’s a reality that must be acknowledged and addressed – but they haven’t yet figured out how 1950-2000 USA was an ANOMALY. Rarely in history has the majority of a large country enjoyed such comfort, prosperity, and global economic/cultural domination. Their fear of the foreigner, unfortunately, also manifests (for some) in a fear of the non-white American, because that’s what they see close at hand.

66

True.

67

I don’t really have anything to add other than I agree, especially with the bolded parts, strongly.

68

– From OP:
No this race was not an endorsement of racism
It was the absence of its rejection.

"Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing." -John Stuart Mill 1867 (multiple attributions of similar forms).
– +++.

Nobody’s saying all 26 million Trump voters are racists. I do think many of them are poorly informed Americans, often bitter, and with misplaced anger (note that illegal workers and foreign trade actually increase prosperity for most Americans, including a large majority of the “deplorables”). The bitterness and anger derive NOT because of anything government or business has done to them, but due to their own mistakes, in a culture which can be difficult. Could it be that 260,000 (1% of Trump’s total) of such “deplorables” in the U.S. voted last Tuesday who wouldn’t normally have voted? I think so, and a large portion of them would have come from Rust Belt states. Ironically the Rust Belt has a lowish portion of the Other (Hispanics, blacks and immigrants) compared with other states: immigrants are not a real problem for them; much suffering is due to inept or unhelpful (often Republican) governance. Florida and North Carolina are among the states which refused to expand Medicaid — doubtless many for whom that was a serious problem voted GOP anyway. :smack:

Note that (better informed, if less white) California voted for Clinton by almost a 62-33 margin.

Clinton would have won PA with 74,000 more votes. Could there be 74,000 “deplorables” in that state who often don’t vote, but were motivated to show up and vote for Trump ?

More likely Pennsylvania had, say, 60,000 of these deplorables as new voters, to go with 30,000 disgruntled Bernie Brats who stayed home Tuesday out of petulance, and at least half a million people who knew HRC was the better option, but felt their vote too insignificant to bother.

The election was quite close — Clinton might have taken NC and WI without their GOP voter-suppression programs, and Clinton still won the popular vote anyway. Had the demographics of “likely voter” been the same as in 2012, etc. Clinton would have won. This election, even more so than others, was about Get Out the Vote. Let’s wait and watch Nate Silver crunch the numbers, but I think certain types of American — including KKK types, homophobes, etc. — were much more motivated to vote in this election than usual.

The large turnout of Trumpists like bullies, racists, bitter ex-auto workers, homophobes quite probably did sway the election. Most likely all of the following are true statements:

    • Had the Democrats nominated a more attractive candidate they would have won. It seems that Dopers have come around to my pleas some months ago that Joe Biden was the safest winner.
    • Trump’s appeal to certain “deplorables” (racists, homophobes, misogynists, etc.) most probably swayed enough voters to make the difference in this close election.
    • Had several GOP adults (George and Barbara Bush, Ryan, Kasich, and more) come down with even greater firmness against the short-fingered showman, the country could have been spared.
      (I don’t actually follow U.S. news. Limbaugh? O’Reilly? Who are the strong GOP pundits and what were they saying about Trump?)
    • Much much more could I write, but would want to cry.
69

Not sure what you are asking me to provide a cite on.

My claim is that turnout was down for Trump compared to Romney slightly, with some voting for Johnson, and that turnout was far more down on the Democratic side, with some, especially among Millennials, voting for Johnson, but mostly just not bothering to vote. Maybe the Johnson throw away was equal to both sides and the Stein throw away was too small to matter too much more likely than not. How much was the prolonged quixotic “Bernie or Bust” movement’s impact and the false story that somehow Team Clinton “stole” the nomination from him, how much the last minute email issue urping back up, how much just that Clinton is just not exciting enough for voters who want something shiny and new and different? I dunno. What I do think is that they actually preferred Clinton’s positions and the direction that she would’ve moved us over Trump’s by far and reject the alt-Right perspective that Trump was embracing … but they still sat and did nothing.
As to the immaterial aside, I do not think that many who voted for Johnson gave a rat’s ass about what is the core of Libertarian ideology. They were IMHO voting for “other” not for the Libertarian ideology.

70

Where are you getting that “26 million” figure from? Didn’t he break 60 million?

71

I guess I disagree with these points.

I don’t see any basis for the suggestion that Biden would have done better. His previous attempts to run for president went badly and ended quickly. The guy who called Obama articulate and clean was not going to inspire more minority turnout than Clinton managed.

Trump’s total vote was very similar to Romney’s, and he got a slightly smaller percentage of the white vote than Romney did. He didn’t bring new white voters into the voting booths.

Trump had to beat 15 other GOP candidates to win the nomination, and he was thoroughly denounced by his opponents throughout the primary season. He was repudiated by the National Review. And yet he crushed Jeb Bush. The whole basis for Trump’s nomination was a rejection of the GOP elite, and a few extra scoldings from elder statesmen would have done nothing to stop him.

72

Well, yes and no IMO.

It seems probable to me that he drove off a fair number of old school elite Republicans and Republicans turned off by his non PC ness / crass ass ness.

BUTT (heh), it also seems probable he attracted/created by voter registration some new Republicans who wanted to say fuck off to the old guard and were not so repelled by his unpleasant to not vote for him.

All in all vote total wise it was probably a wash, but it seems to me that the above scenario is possible.

73

I seem to recall seeing exit polling that concluded that he didn’t attract an unusual number of first-time voters. That doesn’t completely eliminate the possibility that you’re talking about, but we’re chopping the data pretty finely now.