As someone aptly put it on twitter (Nate Cohn), the "white working class" is voting like a minority block--and why would they not? The elites have ignored the working class (white and black) for ages and when they do think of them, white (and other) elites look down at them with the contempt of 'white privilege' while they, the elite whites, sit comfortably in their protected perches rarely exposing themselves to insecurity.
It's possible this is a consequence of overplaying identity politics used to try and counterbalance Trump's followers' politics. In other words the working class had their identity unintentially forged in the scrum of identity politics.
It is not only the white working class - she captures Latinos and Blacks with a lot lower margins than Obama.
You cannot take a person's vote for you for granted. Last week a life long anticommunist in my country voted for the communist candidate - he just said "fuck it, I want to see the face of the ruling party hit the pavement".
And a lot of whites obviously got fed up with being used as an intellectual punching pag
Both the super fiscally conservative and the more... unpleasant parts of Trump's voting block would never vote for someone as liberal as Sanders. I have a hard time believing anyone that would have voted for him would vote Trump, now if you think it would've swayed enough people who voted 3rd party to vote Sanders instead you might have something.
I have dozens of friends who were energized about Bernie. 250 of my FB friends like his page. I know exactly one person who really supported Hillary. 28 of my FB friends like her page. I saw many people post saying they were very disillusioned by her becoming the candidate. I also have some very liberal friends who specifically dislike Hillary and not only refused to support her, but opposed her.
Sanders had energetic youth support similar to Obama, but more so. I believe he would have won.
"Theory: In US presidential elections, the more charismatic candidate wins.
People who write about politics, whether on the left or the right, have a consistent bias: they take politics seriously. When one candidate beats another they look for political explanations. The country is shifting to the left, or the right. And that sort of shift can certainly be the result of a presidential election, which makes it easy to believe it was the cause.
But when I think about why I voted for Clinton over the first George Bush, it wasn't because I was shifting to the left. Clinton just seemed more dynamic. He seemed to want the job more. Bush seemed old and tired. I suspect it was the same for a lot of voters."
Trump is entertaining to watch. Even though I find him a buffoon I still find him fun to watch. Hillary has more experience, matches my views on policy but she is a bore to watch, I can't bear it.
(I'm Canadian, and our immigration server is now down due to the load).
I don't find him particularly charismatic. I'd probably punch the dude in the mouth if I had to deal with him and his attitude in person.
But your points about populist economics are the bigger cause I believe. But then I'm a Bernie supporter who knew he could steal that issue from Trump. C'est la vie.
Overall, 6 of 29 modern elections were won by strongly charismatic leaders (Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, JFK); another 4 elections were won by well-liked but uncharismatic figures, Eisenhower and Reagan. About 80% of the time, an uncharismatic person wins the presidency.
BS. Reagan Like trump was a popular actor and was very charismatic.
Importantly Trump (likely) lost the popular vote by a large margin. But he focused on the few areas that actually count. Remember the extra 250 thousand Hillary voters in DC count for 3, the significantly smaller margin in Florida, and PA count for 49.
Things change over time. Nowadays people are inundated by video of the candidates for over a year straight up to the election. Back then that certainly wasn't the case, especially before the time of television. I'm certain charisma plays more of a factor now than it used to.
[+] [-] mc32|9 years ago|reply
It's possible this is a consequence of overplaying identity politics used to try and counterbalance Trump's followers' politics. In other words the working class had their identity unintentially forged in the scrum of identity politics.
[+] [-] venomsnake|9 years ago|reply
You cannot take a person's vote for you for granted. Last week a life long anticommunist in my country voted for the communist candidate - he just said "fuck it, I want to see the face of the ruling party hit the pavement".
And a lot of whites obviously got fed up with being used as an intellectual punching pag
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] retreatguru|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LargeCompanies|9 years ago|reply
The DNC chose her over Sanders... would the results be different?
[+] [-] runevault|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eli_gottlieb|9 years ago|reply
Yes. All the data at the time said:
* Hillary will beat Trump narrowly (she's losing as I write).
* Bernie would beat Trump in a landslide (I think Bernie would defeat Trump at all).
Socialism or barbarism.
[+] [-] code_duck|9 years ago|reply
Sanders had energetic youth support similar to Obama, but more so. I believe he would have won.
[+] [-] soneca|9 years ago|reply
"Theory: In US presidential elections, the more charismatic candidate wins.
People who write about politics, whether on the left or the right, have a consistent bias: they take politics seriously. When one candidate beats another they look for political explanations. The country is shifting to the left, or the right. And that sort of shift can certainly be the result of a presidential election, which makes it easy to believe it was the cause.
But when I think about why I voted for Clinton over the first George Bush, it wasn't because I was shifting to the left. Clinton just seemed more dynamic. He seemed to want the job more. Bush seemed old and tired. I suspect it was the same for a lot of voters."
[+] [-] retreatguru|9 years ago|reply
(I'm Canadian, and our immigration server is now down due to the load).
[+] [-] Gupie|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] farright|9 years ago|reply
Going against political correctness by voicing controversial but popular views on immigration and Islam.
Populist economics in a recession after two terms of Obama.
And of course a yuuuge charisma.
[+] [-] wavefunction|9 years ago|reply
But your points about populist economics are the bigger cause I believe. But then I'm a Bernie supporter who knew he could steal that issue from Trump. C'est la vie.
[+] [-] blfr|9 years ago|reply
https://sociological-eye.blogspot.com/2016/11/does-charisma-...
Overall, 6 of 29 modern elections were won by strongly charismatic leaders (Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, JFK); another 4 elections were won by well-liked but uncharismatic figures, Eisenhower and Reagan. About 80% of the time, an uncharismatic person wins the presidency.
[+] [-] Retric|9 years ago|reply
Importantly Trump (likely) lost the popular vote by a large margin. But he focused on the few areas that actually count. Remember the extra 250 thousand Hillary voters in DC count for 3, the significantly smaller margin in Florida, and PA count for 49.
[+] [-] cableshaft|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anondon|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kayoone|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yesgreen|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sctb|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtimjones|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]