Did “working-class whites” switch from Obama to Trump BECAUSE the economy was better?

[KingOrfeo]

Amanda Marcotte writes:

At first blush, these [voting] numbers [from Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan] might seem to justify a narrative that’s grown up since Clinton’s electoral defeat: Economic insecurity is driving these working-class voters away from the Democrats into the welcoming arms of Trump, who has wooed them to the dark side by blaming immigrants and people of color for their economic woes.

It’s a nice story because, if true, it suggests a simple solution: If Democrats pushed for a more robust social safety net and strong jobs programs, then these voters would be lured back by their better angels to vote for greater economic security and would reject the racist agenda offered by Trump. It’s a narrative that allows people to believe that this country’s racism problem isn’t that bad, allows urban liberal journalists to romanticize the white-working class a bit and offers the reassuring fantasy that there’s a straightforward solution to the Democratic Party’s woes.

Unfortunately, there’s no reason to believe that this is true. If anything, the 2016 elections disprove this theory. As troubling as this may be to accept, I would argue that the 2016 election results suggest that a recovering economy allowed this small but significant number of voters to indulge their racism and sexism because they didn’t have to worry as much about their economic futures. These numbers may indicate that Democrats don’t lose because of economic insecurity — but because economic security creates complacency, which can lead to a Republican victory.

While there are some negative economic indicators from Obama’s presidency, the overall story of the past eight years is one about Americans becoming more economically stable. The introduction of the Affordable Care Act, with the Medicaid expansion, helped bring stability to white working-class communities in particular, such as in a Kentucky county that saw its uninsured rate decline by 60 percent. Access to health care is a critical aspect to helping people feel secure, something that’s frequently overlooked by those touting the narrative of “economic insecurity.”

The Obama-era job recovery was not as perfect as any of us would have liked but was strong enough to make it difficult to believe that people felt more insecure in 2016 than they did when Obama was first elected. As this NPR story from January showed, the Obama years were marked by a growing job market, rising wages and more access to full-time employment.

<charts and graphs>

It could be better, absolutely. But these numbers, along with the drastic decline in the uninsured rates, make it tough to swallow the idea that large numbers of Americans feel unstable. Stuck, maybe. Wanting more, absolutely. But not afraid and insecure, as they were when they elected Obama during the devastating economic crash that happened on President George W. Bush’s watch.

When it comes to the argument that Democrats can win by promising more robust social and jobs programs, that’s exactly what Hillary Clinton did. As Vox demonstrated in December, most of Clinton’s campaign speeches were focused on jobs and the economy, not on “identity politics,” as her detractors claimed. Her campaign platform was the most progressive in history and included support for a $15 minimum wage and adding a public option to Obamacare.

The grim fact of the matter is that a certain proportion of white voters break for the Democrats when they feel desperate and need the Democrats to save them from Republican mismanagement. Once the Democrats get things stable, though, those voters go right back to voting their racist and sexist resentments.

 

[Rightguide]

No, they switched knowing that Trump would make the economy better.

 

[KingOrfeo]

No, they switched knowing that Trump would make the economy better.

They don't know that and neither do you.

 

[Conager]

--No.

 

[phrodeau]

No, they switched knowing that Trump would make the economy better.

Where's Trump's infrastructure plan? Construction season is starting now. He needs to get those jobs created.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Where's Trump's infrastructure plan? Construction season is starting now. He needs to get those jobs created.

I'm not sure he really understands that hotels are not infrastructure.

 

[HisArpy]

Wait, did she just call those unloyal Dems racist and sexist?

Let's see here, da de da da... Yep, according to her, the good economy allowed all those vote switching Dem's to indulge in their racist and sexist inner selves.

It's really laughable watching Dem's blame everything EXCEPT the real reason they lost the election.

That reason was Hilliary. No more. No less.

Well, that and the scandal about rigging the primary nomination. And the poor economy. And the failure to even consider campaigning in certain States. You'd think they'd realize what actually happened.

But no. All those racist/sexist Dem's who were doing so good economically decided to jump ship and vote for the other side just so things could get worse while they have a little fun letting their misogynistic inner selves run free for the evening. THAT'S the real reason.

It's hilarious. The Dem's deplore Trump for this behavior but they want their voters, who this stupid wackdoodle says are the same type of people, BACK!

 

[KingOrfeo]

That reason was Hilliary. No more. No less.

Not really. She's just an ordinary pol, not in any way worse then Bill, just as honest as pols generally are, not in any way scary, and certainly not a "multiple felon," as I've often seen her called here.

Well, that and the scandal about rigging the primary nomination.

I doubt anyone who voted for Trump cared much about that; it might have somewhat depressed the vote for Clinton, but not much after Sanders endorsed her.

And the poor economy.

An excellent and healthy economy, compared to 2008; things have been getting slowly but steadily better ever since then.

 

[HisArpy]

Not really. She's just an ordinary pol, not in any way worse then Bill, just as honest as pols generally are, not in any way scary, and certainly not a "multiple felon," as I've often seen her called here.



I doubt anyone who voted for Trump cared much about that; it might have somewhat depressed the vote for Clinton, but not much after Sanders endorsed her.



An excellent and healthy economy, compared to 2008; things have been getting slowly but steadily better ever since then.

Had Bill been in the same mental condition as he was back in the 90's (and he was eligible) I'd have voted for him. He was one of the best President's we've ever had. A rotten human being, but a great President. He did things that completely changed the nation. And did some things that were despicable at the same time. But for the nation and government as a whole, he was fantastic.

Hillary isn't even close to being in his league. (Bernie is still confused about who Bill is.) And, if it hadn't been for the rigging via the "super delegates" who were already going to vote for Clinton before she even announced she was running, Bernie might have had a better chance. The Donna Bazil fiasco only points out how badly the D's wanted Hillary in the oval office.

I don't think the economy was getting better. Yes it was very bad when Obama took office, but during his 8 years, the GDP never really improved. Employment numbers remained dismal. If it weren't for the Fed discount window allowing banks to launder money overnight the economy would have crashed and burned.

I also don't think that most economists understand how people adapt to situations they can't change. Most don't go out hunting longer and reaching higher. They hunker down to wait out the famine. In this case the famine was 8 years long and now that Trump is in office, there's a lot of hope it will end. I don't know that it will, but, like the rest of the USA I hope so.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I don't think the economy was getting better. Yes it was very bad when Obama took office, but during his 8 years, the GDP never really improved. Employment numbers remained dismal. If it weren't for the Fed discount window allowing banks to launder money overnight the economy would have crashed and burned.

Bloomberg:

Scores of available gauges could be used to measure national economic performance. Here are 14 compiled by Bloomberg that are widely followed and measure a broad range of economic activity -- from job and wage growth to the strength of key sectors like the real-estate and auto industries to the health of stock and bond portfolios that deliver financial security to working people and retirees:

Total non-farm payrolls
Manufacturing jobs
Value of the dollar compared to major currencies
Gross domestic product
Federal budget deficit (or surplus) as a percentage of GDP
Disposable income per capita
Household debt as a percentage of disposable income
Home equity
Car sales
Hourly wages
Productivity
Bond-market performance
The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index of U.S. stocks
Gap between U.S. and global stock performance

By tallying and ranking the annual improvement in each of these measures under each of the last six presidents, it’s possible to assign an average overall economic-progress score. The scoring gives equal weight to each measure, so if you think some deserve more weight because they’re more important, you’ll have a bone to pick with the methodology. Still, it’s a reasonable guide, even if a rough one.

By these measures, the economy strengthened the most between 1993 and 2000, when President Bill Clinton was in office, followed by the Obama years, 2009-2016. So whatever you think of Obama’s policy choices, the U.S. economy did better while he was in the White House than it did under all but one of his five most recent predecessors.

 

[Rightguide]

They don't know that and neither do you.

Two trillion added to market wealth since the election...as I posted the other day. So yes, I do know that.

 

[BotanyBoy]

My favorite part of the article.....

"The introduction of the Affordable Care Act, with the Medicaid expansion, helped bring stability to white working-class communities in particular."

LOL this lady lives in some alternate universe where ACA was loved by the working class that it fucked dry.



Nah I'm sure they love the fact that their HC insurance just got significantly more expensive and above all else they REALLY love the "fuck white people, especially white men." message you guys put out regularly. That one is really winning people over.

 

[Rightguide]

My favorite part of the article.....

"The introduction of the Affordable Care Act, with the Medicaid expansion, helped bring stability to white working-class communities in particular."

LOL this lady lives in some alternate universe where ACA was loved by the working class that it fucked dry.



Nah I'm sure they love the fact that their HC insurance just got significantly more expensive and above all else they REALLY love the "fuck white people, especially whit men." message you guys put out regularly. That one is really winning people over.

The only solution to this dilemma is to require the Congress and all federal employees to suffer under the same system before real repeal can take place.

 

[BotanyBoy]

The only solution to this dilemma is to require the Congress and all federal employees to suffer under the same system before real repeal can take place.

Good luck with that.

 

[HisArpy]

Bloomberg:

If the good news was that there were jobs everywhere and everyone had plenty, then WHY was the rallying cry of both parties all about creating jobs and increasing the economy?

False data complied from manipulated statistics can tell you anything. Obama's administration created an average of <200K jobs per month. That is less than the number of jobs needed for new entrants to the workforce.

Headlines EVERYWHERE were about how college grads still needed to live at home because there were NO JOBS FOR THEM.

But your data says otherwise. I think I'd rather believe what my own eyes and ears tell me rather than the data supplied by those who stand to benefit by welcome news regardless of what the truth really tells us.

To illustrate how the data is manipulated: The summary says that Obama did better than all but 1 of his 5 recent predecessors. And that 1 was Bill Clinton. Yet, during the Bush II years, we were at war, had a stock market crash because of the attack in NYC, and were adding to the national debt to finance the war. Bush I was in office during a cyclical economic downturn. Reagan's GDP was tremendous but somehow the data doesn't seem to acknowledge that point. And then there was Carter.

It doesn't take much to say you were great when the competition's achievements were not included in the tally for the results or the competition was third rate at best.


You want meaningful? Stack Obama's economy against all of the KNOWN GREAT Presidents and see what the results are.

 

[Conager]

My favorite part of the article.....

"The introduction of the Affordable Care Act, with the Medicaid expansion, helped bring stability to white working-class communities in particular."

LOL this lady lives in some alternate universe where ACA was loved by the working class that it fucked dry.



Nah I'm sure they love the fact that their HC insurance just got significantly more expensive and above all else they REALLY love the "fuck white people, especially whit men." message you guys put out regularly. That one is really winning people over.

To Democrats, stated intentions are sufficient. Actual results do not matter. When a program (inevitably) fails to "bring stability to white, working class communities" it is only because evil Republicans did not let them expand the program sufficiently, or add additional programs on top of programs to fix the usually forseeable (to anyone capable of reason) negative consequences.

Makes it worse? Add MOAR gov't. Still worse? Issue subsidies or tax credits to likely Democrat voters. All better!

A gaffe is when a politician unintentionally speaks the truth. Obama blithly admitted his energy policies would necessarilly have the effect of dramatically increasing electricity costs. When it was pointed out that that would be catastrophic to consumers, regressively punitive to the impoverished and economically d8sastrous, he was unfazed. People would magically use less energy (like the poor dont already yell at tbe kids to turn off lights), and worst case, subsidize power bills...but only for those who already fail to thrive. The middle class bears the cost of all the idiocy. Always has, always will. The poor can't (obviously) pay and there are not nearly enough rich people to pay if they were stupid enough to stand still and let you tax them...and they aren't. We already owe $800,000 per each actual taxpayer and less and less people pay any net taxes each year.

Ann Coulter has a good column out now "Healthcare Even a Republican Can Understand." Her point is if you want to give to the poor, great, dont add that into her insurance premiums. Let her buy nationally from any insurer, just the coverage she wants for just the things she, personally is a risk for and concerned about. It is always about shifting cosrs, not reducing them.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Two trillion added to market wealth since the election...as I posted the other day. So yes, I do know that.

I see you mentioned that but cited no documentation in support.

 

[KingOrfeo]

If the good news was that there were jobs everywhere and everyone had plenty, then WHY was the rallying cry of both parties all about creating jobs and increasing the economy?

Probably because the jobs out there are not the same kinds of jobs white workers' grandfathers did, and most of them are jobs for which such workers are not qualified without retraining. Well, those old low-skill high-paying jobs ain't coming back no matter what the government does.

False data complied from manipulated statistics can tell you anything.

Never seen Bloomberg accused of that before.

You want meaningful? Stack Obama's economy against all of the KNOWN GREAT Presidents and see what the results are.

We would have to agree on a list first; I would not accept any that included Reagan.

 

[Conager]

Bloomberg:

You are such an economic illiterate.

The economy grew as it always does during a recovery. This was the slowest economic rebound on record. Wages and the number of people employed crawled at an anemic pace to now barely equal the numbers of FY2000.

If he had done literally nothing growth would have exceeded that. The ACA choked growth.

 

[KingOrfeo]

If he had done literally nothing growth would have exceeded that.

Not without the 2009 stimulus package, it wouldn't.

The ACA choked growth.

Not in any sense. Nobody is going to be any more reluctant to expand a business or start a new one because of the ACA.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Not without the 2009 stimulus package, it wouldn't.

Yes it would, but you and the (D) insisted on giving the 0.01% a TRILLION dollars for crashing their companies, like the good corporate tools you are.

Can't let them have just 7 figure Christmas bonuses now, that would be cruel.

Not in any sense. Nobody is going to be any more reluctant to expand a business or start a new one because of the ACA.

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!

Jesus fucking christ you've never run so much as a hot dog stand have you?

LMFAO......do you think businesses are just some endless pit of money you can tax endlessly without consequences??

What planet do you live on?

 

[KingOrfeo]

LMFAO......do you think businesses are just some endless pit of money you can tax endlessly without consequences??

Of course not, but the ACA has not been burdensome on them, quite the reverse.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Of course not, but the ACA has not been burdensome on them, quite the reverse.

Sorry if I don't buy your confirmation bias over what I see happening on the ground.


"The ACA has helped small businesses and their employees in a number of ways. These include coverage expansions, small employer tax credits, and the creation of the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP). We judge success on the impact of these policies."

LOL!!!!! yes...they MUST ignore the larger picture.

Like the hundreds of millions that got fucked for the hand full of people who got expanded coverage.

 

[Conager]

Two trillion added to market wealth since the election...as I posted the other day. So yes, I do know that.

Equities are up by that amount but I would not agree that that equals wealth. Wealth is created when someone finds or makes something or provides a sevice to do those things. That is no more wealth than yhe illusionary clinton-era prosperity which was nothing more than a monetary policy induced bubble in tech stocks.

It is mostly speculation on future groeth and inflation.

I see you mentioned that but cited no documentation in support.

1) You have forfeited any right to demand citations from anyone.

2) No citation is needed for basic arithmatic. Take the current aggregate value of the equities markets and subtract their historic value as of Jan 20. You're welcome.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Sorry if I don't buy your confirmation bias over what I see happening on the ground.

What you see on the ground is anecdotal, and "data" is not the plural of "anecdote"; a Ph.D. Assistant Secretary who has studied the matter statistically knows a lot more about it than you do.