What do they want? What do they need?

Great Debates
1

OK, everybody’s throwing their pet theory out there. Here’s mine.

tl;dr version: If Hillary travelled back years ago in a time machine to air-drop lucrative jobs directly onto the disenfranchised, economically anxious rural states, it was already too late. For far too long, the right wing has been dominating the explanatory narrative because the left was ignoring them. Even given 5 years of lead time in listening to their problems and delivering direct solutions, she couldn’t have rebuilt their full trust. Read on for full analysis.

Disclaimer and trigger warning: I voted for Hillary every time I had the chance because I thought she was best positioned to defeat the Republicans. So I’m probably part of the problem. There is some very frank talk in here about the flaws in the Clintons.

Long take: Let’s flash back to 1992.

Manufacturing and agricultural jobs had been in decline for years. The economy was in recession. Rural Americans were suffering.

What they wanted was for someone, somehow, to airdrop some jobs in there, or help them reskill, retool, or relocate for the new economy.

What they got instead was NAFTA sending jobs elsewhere, globalization, gays in the military, an economic recovery that left them behind. Oddly enough they also got a proposal for healthcare reform spearheaded by an unelected citizen, namely a first lady who rode to success on the coattails of her husband. (Coincidentally enough, she had some sort of sketchy contribution to the Nixon impeachment).

This vacuum of acknowledgement was quickly filled by a fascinating new form of entertainment and information in the form of talk radio and the internet. It was rapidly filled by Republicans, hungry for some scandal payback since the Nixon years, inexorably gave rural America the explanation it craved. It whispered in their ears… look at these crooks. You’re out here suffering, and they’re up there helping gays get in the military and dole out free medical care to welfare moochers. Can you believe this shit?"

When there’s only one side of the story, and it speaks directly to your anxieties, you’re not an idiot for soaking it up. And the Clintons made huge contributions by triangulating on business-friendly cronyism and a tin-ear approach to domestic economic issues.

Things really kicked into high gear when Bill obligingly provided a scandal of such moral turpitude that surely - certainly - America must realize its error in electing this man. A married man sexually exploited an intern on the job and lied about it on TV. What did liberals say? It didn’t matter. Did Clinton have the honor to step down? No, he had the temerity to stay in office even after he had been impeached. Now the Republican leadership is absolutely rabid. This should have settled the score. It was OUR TURN to score a scandal victory. The hatred is amped up.

Finally, blessedly, George W. was elected and we were done with the Clintons. Surely normalcy would be restored. But wait - what’s that? No, we’re still not done with Hillary. She’s just been elected senator for New York? She’s not from New York, how did that happen. Oh right, she moved to Long Island for the climate I guess.

So we’re not done with the Clintons, and the right-wing hate machine clatters cheerfully on, while the rural voters are still ignored. Certainly George W. Bush would bring those jobs back, right? Darned the luck if 9/11 and Katrina didn’t happen. Sorry guys, we just can’t get to your job thing right now. Didn’t you notice we’re under attack by Muslims? And by the way, doesn’t it seem like the liberals aren’t totally rooting for America right now?

Then came the 2008 election. A decorated war veteran and senior senator John McCain vs - who is this guy again? A junior senator with almost no experience? Well, certainly this should be an easy contest. The only reason to vote for this guy is because he’s black, and not even liberals are that stupid.

Then, oh my God. They did it. They picked the junior senator just because he’s black, and they’re crowing about it. And oh my God, Hillary Clinton is secretary of state. And while we’re out here dying of job emigration, they’re again pushing healthcare for moochers, gay rights, deference to Muslims and other foreigners, and amnesty for people who broke the law getting into the country. Then they elected him again! They even re-elected him! And what are we getting? A promise to wreck the coal and oil industry. More free-trade deals. It’s starting to look like they have no use for us, if they’re not outright trying to kill us.

We’ll show those bastards. We’ll run our own qualified guy, just because he’s white, and I dare them to call us on doing the same thing they did.

And the right-wing hate machine clatters on. They’ve had 25 years to build up a massive set of counter-narrative to liberalism, while the left is doing nothing but saying “Don’t listen to those guys.”

Even assuming the Democrats started listening to the marginalized flyover states, they’re not interested in talking anymore. Haven’t been for 10 years or more. It doesn’t matter that Hillary was investigated more than any candidate in history and come up clean. The cloud of suspicion was so dense that nothing could have penetrated it.

The Democrats lost this election 24 years ago.

2

I would suggest this be moved to Elections. That said:

On the face of it, your theory just doesn’t make sense. Turnout was low, which means that neither candidate was able to really motivate people. And Trump barely won; it would not have taken a huge swing to move the election firmly into Clinton’s camp in a few key states. Specifically, the single biggest reason Clinton lost because she managed to alienate too much of the working class, while failing to bring in a turnout from almost any other group, including all those which gave Obama solid majorities in both his elections. (I believe, based on your post, that we agree there.)

Yet this group had previously been loyal Democratic voters for years and years. This is a the demographic which resisted being picked up by Republican party - but voted extremely strongly for Trump. Florida and North Carolina’s votes were available. Clinton just didn’t reach out to get them. In fact, her rhetoric seemed almost designed to alienate them - which should not exactly be news.

3

I think that was an excellent post, HMS. I don’t think it covers all the factors, but it covers a lot of the most important ones.

The part I quoted, tho, I think is accurate but only to a point. They may not be interested in talking now, but I bet they’d talk. People love to talk. People especially like to talk about themselves. They just needed someone they could connect with on a personal level to approach them, and Mrs. Clinton is not that person.

The dialogue needs to start now if the Democratic Party wants to win those votes. It’s gonna take time to build those metaphorical bridges and inroads.

4

Thanks for that. It’s the first big thing I wrote in a while. It’s not perfect, but I’m a little proud of it. :smiley:

And you’re right, there are so many factors to consider in this analysis. I see a new angle every time I read another post. It could just be me, and I’m no expert, but I don’t recall an election in recent memory with so many complicating factors around the analysis.

5

Seconded! That was a fun read, and shows that a post election dialogue doesn’t need to be all wailing and “I’m moving to England…”

Dennis