Question re Biden and the Rust Belt.

[Honeycombe8]

This is NOT criticism of Biden in any way, but a real question.

Biden has great appeal in the Rust Belt. PA, MI, WI. But if enough of them voted for Trump because of jobs lost, bad economies, trade deals, how is it that Biden still has appeal there, when he was part of the administration that those guys blamed for their woes? Part of the administration that worked on trade deals?

He DOES have appeal in that area of the country. Is it possible that the reasons some went for Trump was for other things than economy and jobs? Or is it that Russia targeted those states? (I personally think Russia targeted PA.)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. Because many voters vote on personality and not issues, consciously and unconsciously

[Freddie]

2. Yes

And Joe is a guy that people feel comfortable with and trust. That’s huge in places like upstate PA. And I just don’t think there’s that comfort with Bernie, sorry.

[PatSeg]

8. Exactly

It wasn't policy that moved these people to the polls. They wanted a politician who didn't sound like a politician. They were tired of the typical political spin. Politicians need to stop speaking in scripted talking points and start acting like real people, if they want to reach voters.

Of course, how they determined that TRUMP was a reasonable alternative is mind-blowing.

[ehrnst]

11. How so? (nt)

[ehrnst]

18. Who was saying this? (nt)

[PatSeg]

12. Yeah

I think you're right. They were looking for "different" without thought to the consequences. Well, Trump certainly did shake up the system, more like blew up the system.

It is understandable that from time to time, voters want to shake things up, but these voters did it without any attention to details or policy. I'm not sure they even knew what they wanted, as long as it wasn't the same. Change just for the sake of change rarely turns out well.

[PatSeg]

19. Yes

"Oh my god, what the hell did we just vote for???" Like here, too many people in the UK just took whatever they heard at face value.

If anything positive comes out of all this, maybe it will cause more people to double check what they hear. I already know plenty of Democrats who Google almost anything they see posted online these days. No one wants to relive 2016.

[MichMan]

29. Typical for voters to want change every 8 years

Must keep in mind that only once in the last 17 elections has the same party won three in a row

Other than Reagan, Reagan & Bush 1, it hasn't occurred since FDR and Truman. Voters prefer a change every 8 years, so it is more often than from "time to time"

While Trump was a terrible candidate, Hillary had to overcome being a third straight term.

[PatSeg]

33. I suppose that is human nature

though I think 2016 didn't fit any known pattern. Trump was a very strange candidate and the Russian interference was unprecedented. Without Putin and voter suppression in a lot of states, Hillary would have won. Also, a lot of people believe republicans stole the presidential election in 2000, so that would have been "three in a row" for Democrats.

I can see how a desire for change could have contributed somewhat, but I think a lot of cheating was the primary cause for the republican victory.

[clutterbox1830]

34. Agreed.

I've been saying this for awhile.
People might tell pollsters that they are voting on a certain issue(s), but a lot of people vote for a candidate (or for their opponents) purely based on personality, demeanor, race, gender, etc. For Biden, he seems like a "down to earth" individual who is willing to attack or counterattack Trump. Voters like that.

[Freethinker65]

3. Look at recent state wide elections and flipping of governors from Republican to Democratic

If Republican Governors were rejected there is a good chance any Democratic Presidential nominee can win the state.

So Michigan and Wisconsin are far more likely to vote for a Democratic President than, say, Ohio.

[lastlib]

4. I suspect it was a combination of two things--

Immigration fear and Hillary hate.

Behind the immigration fear was fear that their livelihoods would be shipped overseas or taken by cheaper labor from "Mexico", and that was fueled by their perception that the trade deals of recent years was undercutting them. There may be a third factor, fear that the change that the ACA was bringing would be hurtful to them. I'm rather worried that in this cycle, they may develop fear that the "Green New Deal" will also cause economic disruption for them, and that may send them back into tRump's fold. Although I personally favor much of what is proposed, I hope our candidates tread lightly on this.

[doompatrol39]

5. Remember after 2016 when we all agreed...

...that "white working class" and "rust belt voters" was just the media's way of not saying "racist and sexist" voters? And we all thought how reprehensible that was

And pretty much now we are going into 2020 with a contingent of people telling us how we should choose the guy who appeals to the "white working class" and "rust belt voters"?

Which.....if people want to claim that we need to appeal to people because they are those things then fine but at least be honest about it and don't all of a sudden make it out like it's some noble appeal to a legitimate group of people with legitimate concerns and affection for particular policy goals and issues.

[marylandblue]

7. I never agreed that rust belt voters meant racist and sexist.

I always thought that it shoves complex human beings into a box labelled "bad," so that we can criticize them and feel good about ourselves.

I'm glad we want those voters back, but we should not forget about the rest of our coalition or compromise on basic principles.

[Trenzalore]

20. It is unfortunate that is true for a good amount of those voters

It isn't 100% true.

People saw the stock market going up, their cost of living rising, and either their paychecks stagnating or the job they lost after the great recession being replaced with one with significantly less benefits and less pay.

We avoided a depression by saving the rich but the rich didn't return the favor after they were saved. Obama only had two years where he could govern legislatively but the growing income inequality during his term in office was a factor in 2016 as much as racism and sexism.

[doompatrol39]

23. But that affected everyone

Not just the "rust belt" voters or the "white working class".

Sometimes people make it sound like there was some specific thing that happened which only affected white working class voters and not other groups, or more specifically other groups of working class citizens. But there wasn't. Shit happened, it affected everyone, but whites are the only one who seem to need to have their every insecurity pandered to.

Again, the reality of it may be that those people need to have their precious feelings preserved and pandered to in order for us to win. And maybe they only will vote for the old, straight white dude who isn't a socialist (and thus won't give "their money" to minorities). But then people need to say that instead of pulling the same bullshit that Republicans and their enablers in the media do of chalking it up to economic anxieties or "working class appeal" or whatever else when there's zero evidence whatsoever that Biden's history and his policies would be any better than any of the other candidates and in fact in many ways would be WORSE.

Yes, we do need to win voters in some key states we lost last time around. But to me it's even more insulting to the folks in those areas to assume that they are going to be so dopey as to just fall for some old folksy talk from Uncle Joe, with minimal to actually back it up.

[EffieBlack]

28. Exactly!

for example, disaffected black and brown voters just a drastically, if not more. But we didn't get confused into voting for Trump.

Why do you think that is?

Isn't it funny how, under President Obama, folks kept saying that that the national economy may have been strong, but these people didn't feel it in their own pocketbook and therefore it was really meaningless.

But now, under Trump, the conventional wisdom is that the same people might not be benefiting personally, but they feel good that the national economy is strong so they're giving Trump a lot of credit.

[Trenzalore]

30. Quite frankly they'll turn on Joe just like they turned on Hillary

Hillary beat the shit out of Obama in the primary in most of these states in 2008. That was part of her argument during the closing moments of the primary season. Clinton was very popular here.

The media is billing a narrative that Joe Biden is some working class hero in those parts. I don't think that will mesh with what would play out in a general election campaign from the republicans when they tie him to the banking industry (who they are themselves in love with) to divide.

Is there racism in the rust belt? Yes, there is also racism in southern California. Certainly there is racism in Boston. The question is whether you can communicate to someone what is in their best interest. If on the economic front people think they are getting screwed either way they will revert to cultural issues and democrats will lose culturally in that region every time because they are not that socially liberal.

[doompatrol39]

35. Yep

This "working class joe" shtick is going to backfire and collapse under the slightest scrutiny. Does anyone really think people in that area will go "Oh well, he didn't make as much money as the rest of the millionaires in politics did so.....he MUST be working class!!!"

As for your last paragraph about their being racism elsewhere......sure there is. But it is a much smaller percentage of the population. So yes, you can say there are racists in Boston and California. But are they a high percentage of the population? Not at all (well, maybe Boston ). If enough of a population can swing a state based on the fact that they "revert to cultural issues" then we'll have to agree to disagree as to whether those cultural issues are related to sexism and racism.

[SMC22307]

31. No, we did not all agree to that.

I said it then and I'll say it now -- it's the economy, stupid -- and many Dirty Don voters are still being left behind.

[DownriverDem]

6. Because

the blue collar workers have always had a close relationship with Biden. They know trump has screwed them. They will support Biden. Biden was born and raised in PA and should carry the state.

[marylandblue]

9. Biden is well liked personally, but many things he did are not popular.

There will be an effort to drive up his negatives by reminding people of those things. I hope he is prepared for this and has good answers ready.

[ucrdem]

13. He was also Obama's veep for 8 years.

So it's not that has one appeal or the other, it's that he appeals to all core Dem constituencies.

[Honeycombe8]

14. Thanks to everyone for some insightful thoughts on this.

There were several good possibilities to explain what happened in the rust belt. It may not be as cut and dried as I had thought, so there's room for Biden to do well there.

I was just wondering. As I said, this was not a criticism of Biden in any way. I just wanted to clarify this rust belt appeal thing.

[JI7]

17. most didn't vote for Trump based on economy. Biden is an old white man

so it will not be as easy to demonize him to other white men.

[Trenzalore]

21. That is a fallacy

Walter Mondale was an old white man that was demonized pretty well. Dukakis was a younger white man as was John Kerry and Al Gore.

There will be no shortage of demonization by the right if Biden is the nominee.

[crazytown]

27. Mondale was 56

What are you talking about?

[EffieBlack]

22. They didn't vote for Trump because of jobs and the economy

[FakeNoose]

24. I'm in PA and I can say for a fact

... it breaks my heart to say this, but some (few) Democrats did vote against Hillary. Some PA Dems (or otherwise liberal) voters would have voted for a man, but not for Hillary. We saw it in 2016, and I thought Hillary was a stellar nominee and she would have been an outstanding President.

But, I believe those same misogynists would have no problem pulling the lever for Joe Biden, if the nomination goes to him. If our Party chooses a woman, well I can't guess at this point. I know that I'll support our party's candidate no matter who he/she may be. But I can't promise that PA will go blue unless it's Biden or somebody very much like him.

The Chump voters are quiet right now, and it's hard to take a reading. I'm guessing Chump will get way fewer votes next year in PA, especially if he's running against Biden.

[Honeycombe8]

25. Very interesting insight.

So they had no problem voting for Obama, but they would a woman? So it's the female thing, not a racial thing? Or could it have been Hillary in particular?

Might they go for a male as President, with a female V.P.?

[FakeNoose]

32. Yes I've been mentioning this on DU and others have too

Pennsylvania went for Obama twice, but it wouldn't elect Hillary. The pundits called us "deep red" because of the Chump voters, but it's not really true. Our voter registration in Pennsylvania is almost even 50/50 or maybe 49/51, so for any given election it could go either way. Certain counties are very red, while others are very blue but the state as a whole is normally a toss-up. Independents can often make the difference, and I guess that's why we're called a swing state.

PA would definitely elect Joe Biden from what I can see. I think a woman VP would be OK too.

[redstateblues]

26. Let's be honest. Hillary was not popular there. She didn't show.