Discussion»Questions»Life and Society» The HAVES don't give a rat's a** about the HAVE NOTS. It's naive to think they do. Why did the HAVE NOTS elect a HAVE?
See that's what I don't get either!! We are told it was those without a college education that predominately voted for Trump... so that follows that generally these are people who are lower paid and so the opposite of rich.. Why on earth would they think a billionnaire would give a fig about them? or protect them? or help them? or do anything that will be good for them..
I honestly think Trump hoodwinked them and lied to them..he spewed a whole lot of hate and vitriol that appealed to those people to wind them up into a frenzy to vote for him believing that's what he stood for...
We warned them DdbTD! We tried to get their attention but I guess they were so in love they just didn't listen. You know how kids are. Thank you for your thoughtful reply! :
The haves would have won no matter who was elected. BO and Clinton did nothing for the have nots that is why the Dems lost so many previously dem voters.
Maybe so but BO made millions on the side as President. Hillary made millions on the side as Senator and Sec of State. So I guess the consumer protections regulations did not apply to them.
You are correct there @Deaves but the strange thing is that those who have not specifically seemed to think that Trump identified with their plight.. and there's no way Trump could even begin to imagine what normal folk's lives are like.. he was born into a rich family and is now what we'd call stinkingly rich.. I don't get why they seemed to think that Trump was any less of a greedy self absorbed a*****
if you want to understand why that is/was you have to acknowledge he wasn't a politician and he wasn't from a family that was directly involved in the political sphere. He highlighted that fact and people related to him based on that. He was like them in that he wasn't part of or connected to any political positions, interests groups, or dynasties. Clinton was, and heavily so. That's what happened for better or worse. His fame wasn't built on being involved in government and people been seeing it more as regular citizens vs. people from political dynasties and/or "club" members. You're mistaking what people believed they could relate to him on if you break it down to rich/not rich.
Nor do I think anyone in numbers didn't think he was self absorbed. He just embraced it and owned it and the other tried to hide it or pretend she wasn't. People tend to be more forgiving in judgment of people who own up to their negative characteristics as opposed to people who deny them.
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at December 1, 2016 10:23 AM MST
No Trump nor Clinton can relate to the average and below average wage earners. Trumps point was the jobs leaving the country and after eight years of BO there are 94 million people not working that used to work but gave up looking for work. Those used to be taxpayers but are not either not paying or are taking tax money. The country cannot continue to increase taxtakers and loosing taxpayers. The Unions backed Trump even though only 7% of workers are union members. BO's laser focus on jobs never got lit. HRC wanted to continue what BO did. That is what the voters rejected.
Wellllllllllllllllllll we had similar don't forget.... it was an almost world recession... many countries were in the same boat....what worked for us? was it politicians or voting in a raving loony? No, it was just keeping on keeping on, sticking with sensible programmes and being patient...
There weren't any miracles...
I remember when Obama was elected... I remember that hysteria.. albeit happy hysteria - people thought he could walk on water.. they thought he would save them...I knew that he couldnt... it was over simplistic to think he could.. but i see people putting the same illogical blind faith in Trump.. only this time they are putting that faith in someone who is seriously derranged and dangerous... or at least who gives that impression
Sorry, but it's true. Come on Rosie, Just sayin', Neither one was/is or represented have-nots. Please let me know how I won't disappoint you for future reference. What would have been a better image for the point?
(I can talk as much crap as I want about her tenure as NY Senator. That's my rightful privilege being a NY'er.)
Of course. We still have free speech guaranteed us by the Constitution. Until PET and his cronies destroy that. Which I believe he will. He must be loved by all. He will see to it that those who think he sucks big-time for all-time will pay for it. That would include me. Will we still enjoy that right? I dunno and neither do you. Thank you for your reply. You are a Trumpeter. I am not. So what? :(
First of all, the data I've read on Trump voters suggests the HAVE NOTs mostly voted for Clinton. Instead, it was the White People Who Have Some (median income about $72,000/year) who voted for Trump. Moreover, the main predictors of Trump support were:
1) Being a Republican 2) Being strongly sexist 3) Being strongly racist 4) Being strongly authoritarian
Clearly, economic status was not the main driver of Trump support.
On the flip side, as others have pointed out, the Clintons are most definitely HAVES in our world and, while the truth is much more nuanced than the narrative, the NARRATIVE about Trump is that he's a Self-Made Billionaire, while the Clintons are wealthy because of influence-peddling. Americans like their rags-to-riches success stories, even when they're mostly nonsense.
Finally, can you remember the last Democratic initiative which DRAMATICALLY helped the poor and, more importantly, the middle class? And by "dramatically," I mean both significance and (maybe more importantly) as a NARRATIVE the Democrats could sell. I'm largely drawing a blank.
Unfortunately, as the power of organized labor has diminished, the Democratic Party has largely shifted its emphasis to representing urban educated technocrats, whose interests often don't correspond to those of the Have Nots.
Did the Have Nots want free trade agreements? No, but the Democratic Party implemented them.
Did the Have Nots want the Bush tax cuts extended? No, but the Democratic Party caved and renewed them.
Did the Have Nots want universal health care, or at least Medicare for all? Yes. Did the Democratic Party deliver? No.
I think it's fair to argue that, at the margins, the Democratic Party DOES deliever for the Have Nots somewhat better than the GOP. But (in recent US political history) it's always at the margin, and almost always lacking a NARRATIVE where the Democrats can plausibly say, "See, we're on your side."
Until the Democratic Party can find a way to sell the policies most Americans say they actually want, they're going to be stuck playing catch-up.
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at December 1, 2016 11:07 AM MST
JohnWatsonMD 