If working class whites actually voted for policies that helped them, they wouldn't vote for a party that is dominated by global capitalists. Granted, the democrats are global capitalists too, but at least they throw the poors a bone here and there.

Trump's transition is being hijacked by global capitalists so none of the good ideas Trump proposed will get passed (trade, immigration, infrastructure, etc.). But that won't stop the MAGA hat wearers from loving Trump.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31981169)

http://www.marketplace.org/2016/11/23/economy/employers-figuring-out-latest-twist-new-overtime-rule-injunction-halt-it

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31981247)

- Unions protection

- legislation for higher min wage

- Access to affordable healthcare

You might wanna edit that

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31982439)

aka

Trump supporters in the rust belt

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31985141)

trump's victory speech was about fixing infrastructure. everyone agrees our infrastructure is shit and needs to be fixed. bannon and trump both seem to agree that it's insane to not borrow to fix infrastructure when interest rates are so low.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31981208)

DEMS will go fucking ape shit over the "tax cut for the wealthy"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31982445)

Working-class people did not vote for Trump for this or that policy. They voted for trump because they are tired of being cucked, trashed, talked-down to, and demeaned.

You people keep talking about material shit. Nobody fucking cares about material shit.

People voted for Trump because they are tired of their *souls*, their *humanity* being under constant assault by the inhuman forces of global neoliberalism (hehe).

As long as Trump continues to stand up and say "you, the working people, and your way of life, are worth fighting for", people will vote for him. It barely matters if he actually delivers.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31981227)

It's great to give lip service to them, but how is he going to deny that they are JUST AS FUCKING POOR AND BROKE in 2020 as in 2016?

GOP controls everything, you can't blame the DEMS

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31982454)

hint: think of white working class as the new black vote. they are going to vote for Trump no matter what. Whether GOP can also keep this demographic is an open question but for Trump as he said he can stand and shoot somebody on fifth avenue and his base is not going anywhere. DEMS only hope to get some of them back would be to run somebody like Bill Clinton or Sherrod Brown. If they go with Booker or Kamala forget about winning OH/WI/IA for sure.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31982471)

The White vote is decreasing every election.

Clinton failed to bring out millineals and minorities the same way Obama did.

She got FEWER votes in Detroit than Obama did, thus losing Michigan.

If the DEMS go with a Booker or Kamala/Brown ticket, then the "White lower-class" bloc of voters won't be a game-changer.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31982579)

i will explain why: Both Michigan and WI are overwhelmingly white. You are mistakenly thinking that white split between GOP/DEM will stay the same in 2020. It wont

Kamala/Booker will get those extra 100K votes from detroit sure but they will bleed another 200K in white vote bcos of their racial justice bullshit

at the end of the day midwest is overwhelmingly white. no DEM can win without getting at least 40% of the white vote in those states and kamala/booker will get fucked by the white vote big time

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31982600)

A) did so because of "racial justice bullshit"

&

B) They'll forever remain loyal to Trump.

Both of which are speculative at best.

Additionally, if white voters could be turned off by "racial justice bullshit" so easily, then how did Obama in 2012 get more votes than Trump in 2016?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31982626)

Voter turnout is typically ~60% which means there are millions of white voters that didnt vote in MI/WI. Infact the white voters who didnt vote is more than the total minority voting population in those states so there are lot of working class white votes to activate

You are the one assuming that a candidate very appealing to blacks (kamala/booker) will increase the black vote without affecting other variables. That is false

Best combo for DEMS would be Sherrod Brown (or equivalent white) with Booker type minority as VP. Worst combo would be a California SJW warrior like Kamala with no connection to the rustbelt. so I am rooting for Kamala/Booker combo

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31982665)

SO why didn't Trump activate them this election year?

You think MOAR poor whites are gonna come out and vote in 2020 than they did in 2016?

Why? Because of "racial justice bullshit"?

2nd, you think a former ProsBro, former Attorney General, former Senator from the the most populous state would do WORST IN THE MIDWEST than a guy from Hawaii named "Barack"?

lol

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31983260)

Also, it is foolish to assume that blacks would turn out for a black candidate like they did for obama. That milestone has passed.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31983488)

"I have no facts to back it up, I'm just speculating"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31983495)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31983543)

obviously he didnt activate all of them. around 93M ppl who were eligible to vote didnt. And I would roughly guess atleast 25M of that is white working class vote

Obama is one of the best politicians of all time and he also ran at the best time for a racial minority. this is not 2008, kamala is a TTT politician (i live in CA btw). So yes Kamala will underperform with white voters especially after her SJW antics on race/BLM as a prosecutor

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31984789)

I'm not even flaming, I really want to know because Kamala has a lot more accomplishments than Obama did when he ran.

a) She isn't a Musbro

b) She's a former District Attorney

c) She was former Attorney General

d) SHe was elected to the US Senate

ALL WITHOUT ANY TYPE OF SCANDAL

How many females have accomplished that?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31985158)

how much would a black woman from ultra liberal CA with her track record on social/race issues appeal to a 50 year old white with a HS degree in a small town in OH or MI? zero

Only way Kamala wins is if Trump's first term is a disaster and we have a situation like 2008. Otherwise she will be the worst candidate for DEMS.

the fact you think that being a prosecutor or AG in CA is relevant to voters in the midwest is delusional. almost every national politician (except Trump) has this kind of track record. u think kaine, bob dole, hillary, mccain, kerry were flipping burgers before running for POTUS? lol

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31985221)

How is a Black guy from Hawaii with the middle name "Hussein" who hasn't even finished his FIRST TERM in the Senate gonna appeal to a 50 year old in Wisconsin?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31985749)

kamala wont have any of this assuming Trump's presidency is not a disaster. And she is also a far shittier politician than Obama and has some baggage/paper trail on divisive racial issues

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31985783)

but you don't give any specifics.

I don't think you have any.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31986253)

If it's a contest between a Donald Trump, who has failed to deliver, but at least acknowledges the suffering of working class people, and some social justice shrew whose message is that white people are an unimportant, dying voting block who should be scolded for their subconscious racism, who do you think the white working class will vote for?

If it's Trump verses a Bernie or Weld-type economic liberal, or at least an Obama-type person with a broad message, then the Dems will defeat an ineffective Trump. If dems run on a message of anti-white hate on the other hand, don't expect working class whites to come out for them.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31982991)

I'm not saying I fully disagree with you to the extent that government shouldn't be subsidizing *anyone's* way of life. But to the extent that the government does pick winners and losers, I don't see why these people should bear the brunt of the governments choices.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31983273)

But you can't OPENLY call them stupid. All that will do is piss them off and make them and their cousin Kletus vote out of anger for Trump (again)

You have to at least PRETEND that you care about their lives and that you're not just waiting for them to die out.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31983275)

but i'm not convinced the checks and balances necessary in a system of full enfranchisement are functioning to protect us from the average voter's stupidity

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31983546)

Working democracy depends on the voters to be stakeholders in the welfare of their community.

When the vote was restricted to landholders and people who were registered for the draft, we had implicit checks built into the system to guarantee that voters would take their vote seriously: the vote was literally life-and-death to each individual voter. Similarly, a person who owns a physical piece of the country has a stake in seeing that country succeed.

By decoupling the vote from military service and land ownership, we have fallen into the obvious trap of any majoritarian rule: the wolves will always vote for the sheep to provide dinner.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31983618)

And what's your judgment on inner city blacks and Mexicans?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31983065)

I'm not offended by people ITT saying that white working class Trump voters are stupid. I am offended, however, that the same people fail to see that the Democrats are driven by demonstrably false rhetoric about "wage gaps", "rape culture", "murderous police killing black bodies", and other transparent attempts at fear-mongering.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31983117)

Well I see you foaming at the mouth and raging about the idiocy of white rural voters and comdemning the GOP for pandering them but I don't remember ever seeing you forcefully lodge parallel complaints about dindus and the Democrats. But I'm probably just forgetting some threads where you shared those frustrations. Can you link me? Tyia.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31983148)

Damn if only I was smart enough to recognize this as a deflection from my request; well played, sir.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31983176)

So you support disenfranchising inner city blacks and Mexicans?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31983207)

(ignoring that our version of democracy isn't functioning particularly well)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31983217)

Got it, thanks for confirming.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31983226)

not that this system is ideal

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31983253)

"Rural whites are stupid and shouldn't be allowed to vote."

http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31982473

10 minutes later: "Of course I don't support disenfranchising inner city blacks, that's silly and stupid."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31983416)

you may have missed that part? (where i clearly indicated the intentional overstatement, as to both rural whites and others?)

that said, i'm not so sure it's a great idea to give every idiot in this country the power to elect morons, but that's for another time - since that's not the system we have, all we can do is point out the absurdity and live with the mess

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31983459)

This is an explanation, not a justification.

But if you're really going to call people, including your family members, dumb for voting for emotional, illogical reasons, you're going to have to explain why the dems' electoral strategy every four years is to create boogie men to scare up the minority vote and get hysterical women to the polls.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31982867)

I agree there are also dumb dem voters. But I disagree that he strategy this year was to "create boogie men." Yes, there was an SJW aspect to it but they also focused on how unqualified he is to be president, which is what is more important to me.

What would you have done differently?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31983141)

Hillary presented no coherent positive message for herself - her whole strategy was to vilify Trump and his deplorable neonazi supporters who want to control and grab women's vaginas.

What would I have done differently?

- To start with, I would have campaigned hard in white working class areas like Wisconsin instead of taking it for granted.

- Instead of saying that "America is already great", and anyone who thinks otherwise is a racist deplorable piece of human garbage, I would have considered that maybe America isn't all that great for the white working class and addressed their concerns.

-I would not have allowed my VP candidate to speak in another language - a move that alienated a lot of people in this country.

- I would have focused on a broad economic message - Bernie did this right.

- I would have condemned BLM squarely for rioting and burning down cities in swing states.

That's just a start. I'm happy to add more pro tips if you want.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31983249)

You can't shit on minorities and then say, "OH, but I'm still a better choice for you than Republicans!"

"- I would have condemned BLM squarely for rioting and burning down cities in swing states."

"-I would not have allowed my VP candidate to speak in another language - a move that alienated a lot of people in this country."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31983303)

I didn't see Obama getting Biden to speak some foreign tongue to pander to people. He somehow managed to get broad support across all demos without that silly, divisive kind of ploy.

Note that Jeb Bush also tried this pathetic move early in the primaries and got cucked for the same reason.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31983337)

If Obama was fluent, he'd be doing the exact same thing.

Blaming BLM for "rioting" is shitting on minorities and it would get your 0 support from DEMS or minority groups.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31983358)

"Blaming" BLM for their own actions is not shitting on minorities. It's holding an aggressive minority-within-a-minority accountable for burning down minority neighborhoods. One can respect black people in America, and fight for their well being without resorting to burning down black neighborhoods.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31983385)

a) He chose Biden b/c everybody was terrified of a Black man being president. Having an older white man as 2nd fiddle calmed that irrational fear.

b) You can't blame BLM for riots b/c BLM is not a coherent organization. You'd have to have some kind of formal leadership or hierarchy structure to coordinated the riots.

What are you gonna do, say, "Oh...you see this tweet from these random names on twitter? THEY LEAD BLM TO RIOT IN WISCONSIN!"

You'll look and sound ridiculous and no liberal or even moderate would back you up. . .well, except David Clarke, but he's a fucking loon.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31985218)

You are fucking done here with this statement. Go to tls.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31983628)

I'll wait

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31985735)

Last point is interesting. I do think that lack of police accountability is a real problem, and we need to end the unthinking deference to their use of violence. But there are groups of liberals that insist on talking about the subject in the most polarizing way possible' and in shouting down anyone--including those who nearly completely agree with them--who doesn't frame the issue exactly as they do.

On the last point, re turnout--do you actually think this would have gained Hillary enough white votes to offset depressed minority's turnout?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31983404)

The working Hispanic single mother in El Paso has way more in common with the guy who lost his union job and does seasonal roof repairs for a living in Flynt than she does with, say, hedge fund managers in NYC and Lady Gaga. If HRC focused on the issues that unite the former two constituencies, she would have won comfortably. Instead, she depended on an uncomfortable alliance of aggrieved minorities and virtue-signaling urban elites, to the exclusion of the rest of the country.

This was an unforced error. She gave Trump middle-American votes that her party has held comfortably for 30 years.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31983467)

At what point will you (or even the DEMS) admit that putting an Old rich white man/woman is a recipe for failure?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31986264)

At that point, he will realize that his real power-base is the people, the working and middle-middle class. They are the only ones who love and accept him.

So, we will then achieve symbiosis. The people used Trump as a cudgel with which to badger the establishment, and he will use the people to enrage the establishment, by advancing the former's cause against the latter's interests, and becoming a world-historic folk-hero in the process.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31981346)

I disagree. Then again, we've both been proven wrong by Trump before, so who the fuck actually knows? Try some humility.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31983079)

"Trump will get angry with the MSM and he will devote his energy towards poor whites"

Okay. . .how the fuck does that explain how Trump will actually bring back manufacturing jobs to the Rustbelt

or

how he plans on paying for INCREASING THE MILITARY, PRIVATE SCHOOL VOUCHERS, and INVESTING IN INFRASTRUCTURE.

His reply was nonsensical because it was all generic platitudes.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31983325)

Rejecting TPP / NAFTA will already be stopping the bleeding to them - and will alone earn some loyalty and trust.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31981419)

Machines took their jobs away permanently, not NAFTA or TPP.

Look at Apple's discussion about bring iPhone production to the States.

The work will be done by MACHINES right here in 'Murcia.

Poor whites are FUCKT and Trump can't save them.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31982463)

These must be the same friends who were squishy on Romney until Ryan joined the ticket and then MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYBODY!!!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31983090)

No offense brother but you seem legit unhinged. Sessions is not going to set the agenda--Trump is. And (aside from rewarding him for his early support) Trump very clearly brought Sessions on for immigration, not for marijuana enforcement. Trump is a populist and a pragmatist, not an ideologue, and he's not going to waste political capital battling weed any more than he's going to fight against the gays. If you don't realize that, you're a fucking moron. You sound like you've been listening to too many "bisexual and queer-curious" MY Masters bitches who live in nice apartments (paid for by their conservative parents) in urban areas located in deep blue states who are "absolutely terrified" at the harm that a Trump administration will "inflict on their oppressed bodies."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31983114)

You sound like a fucking idiot for spending so much time ridiculing the above poaster when your position is just as stupid.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31983344)

Yes, yes, I do. Let me be even clearer: I think there are more non-felon citizens over the age of 18 living in this country who support serious immigration reform (including increased deportation measures) than who support support cracking down on marijuana use at the federal level. Many more, in fact. And I think that Donald Trump, who is fundamentally a populist, is very well aware of that fact and will act accordingly--and direct Sessions to act accordingly, as well.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3439051&forum_id=2#31983435)