Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

hueymahl

hueymahl's Journal
hueymahl's Journal
November 9, 2017

538: The One County in America that Voted both Trump and Obama in a Landslide

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-one-county-in-america-that-voted-in-a-landslide-for-both-trump-and-obama/

In the year since President Trump pulled off his stunning upset of Hillary Clinton, Democrats have blamed the result on all kinds of factors: James Comey’s letter, Russian hackers, voter suppression, Jill Stein’s candidacy and depressed African-American turnout, to name a few. The truth? In an election decided by fractions of percentage points, it’s easy to call just about anything a difference-maker.

But none of that gets at the heart of why so many people who cast a ballot for former president Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 — and who saw Trump as unqualified to be president — nonetheless voted for him. Although it’s far from a microcosm of the nation, there’s one place that I believe illustrates what happened in 2016 better than anything else.


. . .

Contrary to the “Trump Country” stereotype, Howard County isn’t drowning in manufacturing job losses, high unemployment or an opioid crisis. In fact, its unemployment rate the month before the election was just 2.9 percent. The main gripe? Stagnant wages — and a gnawing feeling that people have been working harder and for longer hours while other parts of the country reaped much bigger rewards during the recovery from the Great Recession.

“When Trump said, ‘What the hell do you have to lose?’ a lot more people heard it than just African-Americans,” said Pat Murray, a Democrat who worked 29 years as a press brake operator at Donaldson and now serves on the Howard County Board of Supervisors. “Our wages have been stagnant, and our insurance has gone backwards,” he told me, citing the union-sponsored health plan’s surging deductibles. “We work 50, 60 hours a week because there’s no one to hire.”

Clinton came to be seen as establishment and dishonest in a year when a plurality of voters wanted change. But in a baffling display of obliviousness, she spent much of the fall jetting between big-city rallies, which were often followed by closed-door, high-dollar fundraisers. She spent precious little time making her economic case before people in midsize cities or small towns like Cresco. And even though she outspent Trump $6.5 million to $2.2 million on Iowa’s airwaves, her ads were more about Trump’s antics than about how she would raise voters’ wages or how Trump might lower them — effectively ceding that ground to Trump’s utopian jobs promises and inescapable slogan.


. . .

Howard County wasn’t always a train wreck for Clinton. Ironically, in the epic 2008 Democratic primary campaign, Clinton ran as the candidate of labor and small-town America, rallying union halls, downing whiskey and beer for the cameras, and blasting Obama’s speeches as “elitist and out of touch.” She came in third place statewide and only carried 22 of Iowa’s 99 counties in that year’s caucuses. But Howard was one of the 22 she won.

By 2016, however, Howard County morphed into Sanders territory. The Vermont senator struck a nerve with his calls for a working-class revolution and his attacks on Clinton’s Wall Street ties and shifting rhetoric on the Trans-Pacific Partnership.


. . .


To rebuild lost trust and win support, future Democrats face the twin challenges of, first, persuading voters that Trump is on track to negatively affect their livelihoods and, second, reclaiming the mantle of working-class hero that every successful Democratic nominee has embraced since vaudeville ruled the stage at the Cresco Theatre.

“My dad told me, ‘You’ll never be rich enough to be a true-blue Republican,’” Bigley recalled. “Now there’s too much darn money in politics, on both sides.” His advice to his party? “Get out here in the sticks and roll around with us common folks for a week or two.”


This is a really interesting article. I imagine a bunch of folks will want to shout down its points and yell about Russian influence and voter suppression. Those are real issues. But so is the Democratic Party's disconnect with rural voters. I know a lot of these people. Howard County is not an outlier. If average, working Americans buy into this "both sides are elitist" arguments (they are) and just want to "shake things up", we need to do a helluva better job selling our message. Because the Democratic message is the opposite of elitist when it comes to economic issues.
August 16, 2017

See a Nazi, Punch a Nazi

July 24, 2017

AP: Democrats Attempt Rebranding with Populist New Agenda

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic leaders believe they lost to President Donald Trump partly because voters don't know what the party stands for. So they're trying to rebrand themselves with a new slogan and a populist new agenda as they look ahead to the 2018 midterms.

It's called "A Better Deal" and House and Senate Democratic leaders are rolling it out Monday afternoon in Berryville, Virginia. They're intentionally traveling outside the Beltway, and into the district of one of the GOP House members they hope to defeat next year, Barbara Comstock.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, along with other top House and Senate Democrats, are making the presentation after months of internal debate and analysis of polling and focus groups.
Democrats think of themselves as the party of working people and were surprised when Trump was able to steal working-class voters from them. They subsequently figured out that voters don't know what the party stands for, and the new effort is aimed at changing that.

Schumer acknowledged on Sunday that Democrats were partially to blame for the American people not knowing what the party stands for.

"When you lose an election with someone who has, say, 40 percent popularity, you look in the mirror and say what did we do wrong? And the number one thing that we did wrong is we didn't have -- we didn't tell people what we stood for," Schumer said on ABC's "This Week."

. . . .

There are three overarching goals: raising wages, lowering costs for families, and giving working Americans better skills for the 21st century economy.

Detailed planks will be rolled out over time. On Monday, three are being unveiled:

—Lowering prescription drug prices. Suggestions include a new agency that could investigate drug manufacturer price hikes, and they would allow Medicare to negotiate directly for the best drug prices.
—Cracking down on corporate monopolies. Democrats would enact new standards to limit large mergers, and create a new consumer competition advocate.
—Creating millions more jobs. The agenda includes proposals for expanding apprenticeships and providing a tax credit to employers to train and hire new workers.


https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-07-24/democrats-attempt-rebranding-with-populist-new-agenda

About damn time our party leaders are putting out a unified message that reflects the reality of the last election. I think this is something we can all get behind. I know I can.
February 7, 2017

At Ninth Circuit, Big Law Makes Its Stand Against Trump Travel Ban

Source: Daily Report

A whirlwind of briefing began the morning of Feb. 4, and several major law firms, including Hogan Lovells, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Mayer Brown, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld have not shied away from rumbling with the Trump administration.

All the Big Law briefs back the states of Washington and Minnesota in their bid to uphold Robart's ruling. The amicus campaign comes as some large-firm lawyers have organized to raise funds and recruit lawyers to represent those targeted for removal and puts the firms in alignment with at least some corporate clients; nearly 100 companies represented by Mayer Brown signed an amicus brief opposing the travel ban.

In the Ninth Circuit case, a Jones Day team led by New York appellate specialist Meir Feder weigh in on behalf of professors from Boston University, Yale Law School, University of Texas School of Law, and New York University School of Law.

"In this case, the unusual selection of seven countries whose nationals are precluded from using the valid visas that they have or from obtaining visas for a period of time, coupled with the apparently extensive evidence that the seven countries were selected because of the religion of their citizens, raises a host of constitutional questions as to the rationality of the executive order and as to its discriminatory impact," Feder wrote.

Read more: http://www.dailyreportonline.com/id=1202778575308/At-Ninth-Circuit-Big-Law-Makes-Its-Stand-Against-Trump-Travel-Ban?mcode=1202617074542&curindex=0&curpage=ALL



This is important, folks. The power of big law should not be underestimated. Too often it is used as a tool of corporations. In this one instance, corporate interests (mainly tech) are aligned with the good of society.

This story comes from the Daily Report, the biggest and most reputable news source for the legal profession. Unfortunately, this story is behind a paywall. But they do have a free initial signup if you want to see it. Or send me a PM and I will copy it for you.

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Home country: USA
Member since: Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:07 PM
Number of posts: 2,495
Latest Discussions»hueymahl's Journal