Whenever I read an article in the New England Journal of Medicine which does not comport with the reality I see in my office, I dismiss it, no matter how tight the science seems, and most often, within the year another article appears which refutes that article.
However, when what I see in the trenches agrees with what the academics say they have found, I believe it.
Such is the case with Thomas Edsall's article in the NY Times today which elucidates the problem the Democrats had with Trump last November. It wasn't so much that Trump beat the Democrats--the Democrats beat themselves.
Having gone door to door for months in the run up to November 8, I saw the problem in the faces of the people who answered the doors--especially in the parts of town where the ragged people live. The underprivileged, the people at the bottom of the economic ladder had no use for Hillary. Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and Donald Trump carved her up with allusions to her speeches to Wall Street at $250,000 a pop.
And she never answered that attack. And that attack killed her candidacy.
She was in the pocket of the rich. Donald was not in the pocket of the rich because he was too rich to be in anyone's pocket, or so the story went.
Edsall cites studies which say things like: For the first time in its history the majority of Democrats voting for President--54%--had college educations. How anyone could actually know this--it's said to be based on exit polls--I do not know.
If you believe exit polls then you would think Hillary won Michigan and Pennsylvania.
Exit polls--phooey! I voted in the last election and the only thing anyone could tell is that I was a Democrat and I voted in Hampton, NH. Nobody could know whether or not I went to college, how much money I make or even who I voted for. Exit pollers showed up for about an hour of the 18 hours the polls in my town were open. Tell me how sampling methodology with exit polling could possibly have been believable.
But Edsall's overall argument is persuasive--it's what I saw. Democrats lost the underclass. The party of the underclass lost to the country club Republican party because the underclass lost faith in the Democratic Party. I could see that going door to door.
So the Democrats have a schism they have not yet addressed. You've got a party of rich people who cheer for the poor but they are not always willing to share their toys and joys with those poor.
And the poor know it.
However, when what I see in the trenches agrees with what the academics say they have found, I believe it.
Such is the case with Thomas Edsall's article in the NY Times today which elucidates the problem the Democrats had with Trump last November. It wasn't so much that Trump beat the Democrats--the Democrats beat themselves.
Having gone door to door for months in the run up to November 8, I saw the problem in the faces of the people who answered the doors--especially in the parts of town where the ragged people live. The underprivileged, the people at the bottom of the economic ladder had no use for Hillary. Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and Donald Trump carved her up with allusions to her speeches to Wall Street at $250,000 a pop.
And she never answered that attack. And that attack killed her candidacy.
She was in the pocket of the rich. Donald was not in the pocket of the rich because he was too rich to be in anyone's pocket, or so the story went.
Edsall cites studies which say things like: For the first time in its history the majority of Democrats voting for President--54%--had college educations. How anyone could actually know this--it's said to be based on exit polls--I do not know.
If you believe exit polls then you would think Hillary won Michigan and Pennsylvania.
Exit polls--phooey! I voted in the last election and the only thing anyone could tell is that I was a Democrat and I voted in Hampton, NH. Nobody could know whether or not I went to college, how much money I make or even who I voted for. Exit pollers showed up for about an hour of the 18 hours the polls in my town were open. Tell me how sampling methodology with exit polling could possibly have been believable.
But Edsall's overall argument is persuasive--it's what I saw. Democrats lost the underclass. The party of the underclass lost to the country club Republican party because the underclass lost faith in the Democratic Party. I could see that going door to door.
 |
| Not your Rust Belt Democrats |
There was definitely a two headed monster that voted Trump in: There were the country club Republicans who cared only about one thing-- protecting their money and there was the underclass.
We ask how the underclass can be so stupid as to vote against their own self interest but the same question can be asked about liberal Democrats who vote for Bernie Sanders or for any Democrat. Democrats will try to shift wealth from the rich to the poor and the fact is, most of the upper 20% are now Democrats.
Edsall notes how the upper 20% will rebel when they see Democrats proposing to give the privileged place they have bought for their children to the children of the underclass. The 529 College plan which sent 70% of the tax benefits to families making over $200,000 was targeted by President Obama to bend it in favor of lower income families. The charge against this change was led by Democrat Chris Van Hollen who represented the 8th District in rich Montgomery County, Maryland, which includes Bethesda and part of Chevy Chase, a safe Democratic seat but woe to anyone who tries to take a place at Princeton from the family of one of those voters and give it to a kid from Anacostia, the poor part of Washington, D.C.
And rich Democrats rebelled, as they did when lower cost housing was proposed for Marin County in California.
So the Democrats have a schism they have not yet addressed. You've got a party of rich people who cheer for the poor but they are not always willing to share their toys and joys with those poor.
And the poor know it.
No comments:
Post a Comment