2016 was never about economic anxiety

[Otto Lidenbrock]

The antics last night confirm it, if you didn't already know.

The idea that Trump got in the White House because Hillary and the Democrats represented a staus quo that sold out Middle America behind is false. Trump got in because he and the Republicans represent a return to the era of fewer rights for people who don't look like them. The era of open and proud racism, bigotry and hatred.

If economic anxiety was real then bigotry shouldn't be on the rise. Afterall, Trump boasts about "the best economy". If economic anxiety were real his supporters should be kissing their wallets and shutting up. Instead bigotry is on the rise. Because economic anxiety of Trump supporters is a myth.

[SouthernProgressive]

1. Economic anxiety was promoted by a small group...

Who didn’t vote for Clinton. They were excusing race to further their agenda. The media gave an assist because it was easier for them than calling it what it was.

[Maven]

5. Yes, the media was eager to adopt the "economic anxiety" narrative because it excused them

for having given billions in free press to a white nationalist candidate for president.

[marylandblue]

2. Economic anxiety increases racism as anxious people look for scapegoats.

Racist politicians provide scapegoats for anxious people.

[soryang]

7. Exactly

nt

[Act_of_Reparation]

8. I don't think it is that simple in this case.

If times are shitty, you can always point a finger at the other and get people riled up. That's a given. No argument there.

But I think the current wave of right wing nationalism has less to do with economics and more to do with a perceived shift in demographics that is making many traditionalist whites nervous that their position on top of the food chain might be in jeopardy.

[JI7]

10. exactly, take the farmers and others who are worse off and still supporting him

[marylandblue]

13. I agree with you, I just don't think there are enough people concerned about democraphics

To win a presidential election.

[BeyondGeography]

3. Yes, but you're much better off operating under the assumption that economic anxiety is real

if you’re going to defeat him.

[at140]

6. +10

[Saviolo]

4. If only everyone could have predicted this.

Like, everyone. Everyone predicted this.

Also, if your "economic anxiety" is more important to you than racist attacks on American elected representatives, or children in concentration camps at the border, then I'm sorry my dear deplorable, but you're a big ol' racist! And greedy to boot! And possibly a sociopath!

[unblock]

9. "Economic anxiety" was a rhetorical cover for "racists' anxiety"

during the campaign, the economy was, by all standard measures, quite good, certainly good enough for political purposes to strongly support the incumbent's party.

we had near-full employment. there's always turnover in jobs, but *real* economic anxiety happens when losing your jobs means you're unemployed for a year because the unemployment rate is 10%, not 4% or whatever it was by november 2016.

as has become clear, donnie's agenda, certainly his rhetorical agenda, is nearly entirely about race and bigotry and misogyny and hatred. the only "anxiety" he appealed to was the anxiety of bigots who feared that changes like having a black president, and heaven forbid, a woman president, might mean they can no longer go around feeling superior simply because of the color of their skin or the shape of their genitals.

if they really had *economic* anxiety, they would have voted for the party that had just rescued us from financial calamity and steadily improved the economy for eight years.

what they had was *bigots'* anxiety, the fear of losing their precious, unmerited privilege.

they only called it "economic" anxiety because the truth wouldn't have played well....

[StarfishSaver]

15. Precisely

If it were really "ecnomic anxiety," people of color would have supported him to, since we're the most economically anxious demographic in the country.

But we didn't. Because we knew what it was about - and it didn't have anything to do with economics.

[paulkienitz]

11. Nuance: it was never about economics for the base, but for swing voters it probably was.

The deplorables are mostly not swing voters. The ones in the middle who decide elections may well have been fooled primarily on economic issues. They've seen jobs going overseas and they voted for the guy who claimed he could get them back. They won't be fooled again, so the deplorables are who he has left.

[StarfishSaver]

16. If it was really about economic anxiety, why didn't black and brown people vote for him?

This was about white anxiety, plain and simple.

[paulkienitz]

18. because for white swing voters, his link to the deplorables was something they could ignore

as not personally relevant.

[StarfishSaver]

19. White swing voters weren't the only ones who voted for him

The vast majority of his support came from people voting their racism - with an assist from white voters who didn't care that they were aligning with racists to vote for a racist.

If this were about economic anxiety more black voters would have joined in with the white swing voters.

This was about white anxiety, not economics.

[paulkienitz]

20. I never said otherwise.

The republican base is racist -- their "southern strategy" (which is now more midwestern) has carefully nurtured and fostered this for decades. But I was speaking specifically about swing voters. They are a much smaller group. Their support of Trumpsky is far more fickle than that of the base is, and is probably already a thing of the past which he can't hope to repeat. Trumpsky may have had 40% of the vote in the bag by being racist, but I see no reason to doubt that it was the small number of additional people who heard economic hope in his campaign who managed to put him over the top (or within vote-suppression distance of the top) and win four crucial rust-belt states that were not won by other Republicans.

And a few people of color did actually vote for him -- I just saw a story a day or two ago about one who just now realized what a mistake it was.

[betsuni]

12. "As the campaign got under way, much was made of Americans' 'anger' and anxiety about

their economic circumstances. But levels of anger and anxiety were no greater in 2016 than in recent years. In fact, economic anxiety had been decreasing, not increasing, in the eight years before 2016. What economic and political dissatisfaction did exist was powerfully shaped by political identities. With a Democrat in the White House, Republicans had much less favorable opinions about conditions in the country. But dissatisfaction also reflected racial attitudes under Obama, while Americans' feelings about blacks became associated with many things, including whether and how they felt about the economy. 'Racial anxiety' was arguably driving economic anxiety. Moreover, during Obama's presidency, there was an even stronger alignment between partisanship and identifies and attitudes tied to race, ethnicity, and religion. The party coalitions were increasingly 'racialized' even before the 2016 campaign began. .... The important sentiment underlying Trump's support was not 'I might lose my job' but, in essence, 'People in my group are losing jobs to that other group.' Instead of a pure economic anxiety, what mattered was racialized economics.

"Despite the ongoing alignment of racial attitude and partisanship, as of 2012 a substantial minority of white Obama voters still expressed less favorable views of immigration, undocumented immigrants, undocumented immigrants, African-Americans, and other minority groups. Trump's appeal to these voters helped ensure that Obama supporters in 2012 who voted for Trump in 2016 outnumbered Romney supporters who voted for Clinton. And because these voters were disproportionately represented in battleground states such as Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, they helped Trump win the Electoral College ... . Before the election, the prevailing wisdom was that the country's growing diversity would help the Democrats continue to win the White House. Trump's victory showed that the backlash against that diversity could be a winning issue too."

From "Identity Crisis: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America"

[StarfishSaver]

14. I thought it was because Hillary and the Democrats were too "elitist"

No?

[richsonpoordad]

17. True. By the end of his Presidency, Obama had already reduced unemployment by 3 points to 4.8%

A better and more aggressive investment from big corporations (that obviously did not want to help Obama but would rather wait for the huge tax cuts coming their way from the GOP) would have given Obama even greater results. Trump has only moved the unemployment rate down by 1 point and his job creation number pale in comparison to Obamas. And history shows that our economy always does better under Democratic administrations and the last balanced budget was under a Democratic administration AND Obama had made big moves agains the deficit and debt mostly down until his last year creeping up. Our trade deficits were also better under Obama and would have improved significantly under the TPP had it been enacted.

It was always about fear and loathing of the "others." This fear and loathing of "others" has always been used by the wealthy power base to get those whose self interest is most negatively affected by the GOP policies.

Sigh...it never ends. We will have to clean up more GOP mess when the dust settles but it will take much longer this time because the damage from this Trump administration is deep and wide.

[brooklynite]

21. yes it was...for the voters we care about...

The voters in battleground States who were unsettled about their economic status, some of whom voted for Obama.

The voters we can potentially win back.