Time to observe and wait….

Last week, I thought I want to continue my musings about the role of urban-rural divide both in the US-eh, and here in Canada. There’s plenty of evidence available now that the inadequate response to rural discontent by Democratic strategists played a very large part in Clinton’s failure to win the presidency. Together with complacency about just how close the polls were—often within the “margin of error”—Clinton’s supporters badly misjudged how narrow their path of victory was.

This week, to my surprise, I just want to park the whole issue until after the inauguration of President TrumpFor anyone who still cares, however,  some links to reports & assessments that I’d like to share.

“…it’s been the perception of white, working class people, poor people, that liberal America has basically ignored them for a really long time, and that’s part of what happened here too. There was a blind spot. They [liberal Americans] counted those people [folks in flyover country] out a long time ago. They either think they’re never going to win with those people, or they don’t want them on their side, even. Because of the stereotypes of rednecks, or working class white people, I don’t think the left has made much of an effort to court them or care about them for a while.”
Trae Crowder, ‘Liberal Redneck’ comedian
.

And this from the writer being widely quoted for her assertion that, “….the press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally”:

“Republican media strategist Bruce Haynes challenges his Republican and Democratic DC- based peers who are knee-deep in their drinks over Trump’s win to take a step back and look at the map of what Clinton won Tuesday night. “She won the biggest metropolitan areas in the country and a couple of Southwestern states that have seen a huge influx of Mexican immigrants,” he said.

“And that is all she won and not a damn thing else.”

That is, she won the top 10 populations centers where most of the wealth, commerce and power is located — and lost the bulk of America.

This great populist election was all a big pushback against elitism on both sides of the aisle.” Selena Zito, New York Post.

From Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post this assessment entitled,
One of Hillary Clinton’s top aides nailed exactly why she lost”:

“Why did Clinton lose, then? Because no one understood just how much people wanted change and how big a risk they were willing to take to put someone way outside of the political system into the White House.

Consider this:

* Just 38 percent of voters said that Trump was “qualified” to be president (52 percent said the same of Clinton).

* Just 35 percent said Trump had the “temperament to serve effectively as president” (55 percent said Clinton had the right temperament to be president).

* One in three voters said Trump was honest and trustworthy (36 percent said the same of Clinton).

Numbers like those in almost any other election would ensure a Trump loss. If the goal was to disqualify Trump or suggest that he represented too large a risk to take a chance on, numbers like that seemingly prove the Clinton campaign did its job.

But, the desire for change last Tuesday was bigger than any worries Clinton was able to raise about Trump. Four in 10 voters said the most important character trait in deciding their vote was a candidate who “can bring needed change” to Washington. Of that group, Trump won 83 percent to Clinton’s 14 percent — 83 to 14!!!!

Think of it this way: You know a hurricane is coming. You build a 20-foot wall around your property to protect it from the storm surge, believing that the waters have never risen above 14 feet before so you should be plenty safe. Then a 25-foot surge happens.  You’re swamped not because you didn’t see it coming or didn’t plan for it but rather because something ahistoric happened. The past no longer became predictive of the present.

That’s what happened to the Clinton campaign. It was based on the old rules of the road. If your opponent is the change candidate, turn that change against him. Rather than refreshing change, turn it into dangerous change.

That all happened. And Trump still won.

Past is prologue only until it isn’t anymore.”

And also from the Washington Post, the graphic below: 107,000 in three states….
(To enlarge, right click on the graphic and choose “Open in a new tab”).

of-the-more-than-120-million-votes-cast-in-the-2016-election-107000-votes-in-three-states-effectively-decided-the-election

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s