Also, many of those areas are not uniformly red. There are roots to grow from.

Economic justice is social justice. There should be no conflict.

The disconnect between some Democrats and many citizens of the economically disadvantaged working class must end. Many here protest the "elitist" label, but it's use is justified for more than a few of us.

It is untrue that all Trump supporters are ignorant racists. What is true is that many of them are just plain desperate and are willing to overlook a lot in order to have someone with power respond to their devastating economic plight.

The fact that we won the popular vote does not exempt us from criticism for all the House, Senate and governorships we've lost. We have a lot of work to do and we're going to have to gain control of something in order to do it. That means reaching more people, not the same number we have now.

I spend a lot of time talking with poor people in rural areas. Recently I had my septic tank pumped by a farmer who is about to lose his farm. He works seven days a week and must be in his 70's. This is one of a zillion stories I've heard and many of them end in a comment about there being no difference between Democrats and Republicans. I disagree with that belief, but lots of voters think otherwise. We must listen and learn from these folks rather than tell them we already know what's best for them....and we don't really need their vote anyhow.

I learned so much from what happened with the Standing Rock Sioux....the leadership, the commitment of purpose, the courage. It's a fine example of what we could accomplish, even facing incredible odds. I' m willing to bet there were many cultural and political differences among the participants at Standing Rock, but they respected one another and made something meaningful happen.

We can find common ground with SOME Trump supporters and with some folks who didn't vote. It's worth a try.

The Republicans aren't exactly working class either. They talk a real good game while constantly sucking the life from these people, and that's just alright for their voters. The folks you are talking to in these rural areas have put Republicans in charge of most things out where they are.

You say they feel lie there is no difference between the parties? So why do they overwhelmingly keep Republicans in power? How are you going to get somebody to vote a full Democratic ticket when they so clearly refuse to do so no matter what happens? What do we say to people like that other than we are going to give you every single thing you want irregardless of it's impossibility or economic blowback?

Obama ran on hope and change and got zero help from Republicans and zero help from his own party for a nice chunk of his time in office. If they didn't get the change it's their own damn faults for not putting in people that wouldn't do anything but obstruct, denigrate, propagandize and generally work hard at keeping their voters in the dark and ignorant.

He alienated a large portion of those voters from reality with his false promises and grandstanding. Trump saw that and capitalized on an opportunity to con them even more. Now we have a billionaire appointing billionaires.

The seven stages of grief are a long road.

White House. That's the hallmark of Bernie's campaign. If you couldn't have Bernie, then we couldn't have anyone at all.

So maybe you are projecting your bitterness over Bernie's resounding primary loss -- by millions of votes.

Not that I need to explain myself to you, but since you have chosen to attack me instead of the message, I voted for Hillary, campaigned for Hillary, donated to Hillary and lost a few friends over Hillary.

The difference is I am not a true believer in any politician. She would have made a great president. But she was a shitty politician. Blaming Bernie for her terribly run campaign is "denial" squared.

And you didn't have a message, it was just a snide comment apparently from your own projection.

You don't have to be a "true believer" to understand common sense and common knowledge. Bernie had no path to victory but he continued in the campaign and the end result is that he alienated many voters by overpromising and calling Hillary corrupt and by association, the Democratic party.

And her "terribly run campaign" won the popular vote. It was in the states/areas where Bernie overpromised that Donald was able to peel off gullible voters. Others were Bernie or Busters. Bernie is responsible for his own actions, and maligning Democrats was a really sucky thing to do.

Like a plane crashing, there is almost never one event that caused it. It is usually a series of failures and outside events that led to the ultimate crash.

Extending the analogy further, HRC was the pilot. She made mistakes, but she was not the sole reason the plane crashed.

Too many people refuse to acknowledge she made mistakes. To me, that is crazy talk, and leads nowhere but to further losses. This was the origin of the "blinders" comment.

the weak areas and should do so. I was talking more about the overall trajectory and tone that was set in the primary by Bernie attacking Hillary and, by association, Democrats. Donald Trump is a con man and he obviously listened and observed how Bernie's divisive rhetoric was catching on without having to substantiate anything he said. Even Kellyanne Conway said Bernie "softened" up Hillary in the context of making her vulnerable. Trump even thanked Bernie for handing him the Clinton smear playbook.

The trajectory of the Primary definitely set the tone for further exploitation by Trump and his staff by their own admission. Now look what we have. A billionaire appointing billionaires.

I'm just more than a little frustrated with the large number of people refusing to acknowledge that we need to change. Not change our core beliefs, but certainly change our messaging and our tactics.

As a conciliatory gesture, I will acknowledge that Bernie did a great job of identifying her weaknesses, and that helped Trump. Just like we will never know how he would have done if he got the nomination, we will never know how HRC would have done if Bernie had not run in the primary.

It looked like Hillary had Obama's legacy to run on, as well, so she adopted a lot of that which implied a continuation of policy. And some things Bernie focused on were not really her weaknesses, but more his own version of reality that he hammered and thereby created a weakness to exploit. Trump is a straight up con man, so any little crumb of discord he manipulated to his benefit, and the primary gave him the playbook to hurt her.

I liked your message, though. It sounds very reasonable.

I recall BS winning all those states with more white people. Then the Orange Menace took up that anti-establishment theme. Yet no one really wants to lose all that stability we have, so it's silly.

by aping Bernie's grandstanding and taking it to even another level of crazy.

"Trump campaign uses Sanders' words to knock Clinton..."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/04/politics/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-clinton-foundation/

I expect you will get attacked by the usually crowd with the usual cries of bigotry and racism. Always easier to blame someone else than to accept responsibility. Thanks for posting.

.. and losing our soul and a good portion of the dem base in outreach to them the way Fuck Mouth did.

Comey, Voter suppresion and Russia... get them first and we can look internally

I don't give a shit what part of the country they live in or how much they make or if they lost their jobs or what ever.

They have no interest in training programs or emerging technologies or pragmatic government solutions. They only believe in the fantastical and bogus claims by the new Racist-in-Chief that he can bring back their old jobs which require no new learning or drastic work life (and ideological) changes from them.

Our only hope is they come to their senses and realize his ideas and plans are failures so they need a different path.

but there is a perception among rural peoples that a lot of their tax funds go directly to the cities and urban areas and have no benefit to them. Then when they try to get a little bit of tax funding to finance their volunteer fire department that needs a new truck and they are told no. Not pointing fingers at anyone but some on our side will say if you want to benefit from government grants then move to the city, the implication being that it's their fault or their decision to live where they are not receiving much of anything for their tax dollars.

What we need to do is show them how they are getting benefits from their tax dollars. That will shut them up.

to them.

They flat out don't believe anything that does not fit their existing beliefs.

we shall just write them off and be done with it, problem solved.

Don't worry your head about it, the only cuts congress will allow is benefits for education, and the healthy nad welfare of women and kids in poverty.

Thanks and have a fantastic day!

If people are not interested enough in their own futures to read about issues and candidates and only follow their piss poor "gut" instinct, what are Democrats supposed to do? It won't matter if we suddenly become the best friends of the rust belt if they refuse to turn off Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh and listen.

Anyone can tell you what you want to hear - it's economics. And part of the xenophobia is being phased if "others" do well.

Sorry but that's not who we are.

The democrats are usually more trusted on economic issues. The question is did ENOUGH people in the rust belt feel we had the right economic message compared to Obama. The answer is no. That's the problem and that's one reason why turnout in the rust belt sucked, and why it flipped red

I'm sick of people trying to cover that up. The wall and the roundup of muslims were the most important "change" voters wanted.

And a large majority of white men voted for the candidate who did that.

Yet people are acting like white men were the victims in the campaign.

And now they do with their entitlement. They don't just want jobs, they want the kind of high paying jobs that you need no education for, and plenty of time and a half.
The kind of jobs that were never open to anyone else but them. The kind of jobs Reagan fucked them out of.
Yet they don't want to raise minimum wage because fuck everyone else. And they're the victims, because easy street is gone.

Also remember that there's been an industrial slowdown going on, which has adversely affected some of these areas and could have frightened voters.

Try this one (jobs growth since recovery):
http://explorer.naco.org/index.html?dset=County%20Economies&ind=Jobs%20Growth%20Rate%2C%20Recovery#


And this one (GDP growth since recovery):
http://explorer.naco.org/index.html?dset=County%20Economies&ind=GDP%20Growth%20Rate%2C%20Recovery#

It explains why some areas have more economic concerns than others.

It's important to also remember that in some of the areas doing relatively well, fracking has been a very large component, and so the locals may vote strongly against too much more regulation.

That what they preferred about Trump was halting immigration and terrorism- and xenophobes are usually sexist. What he saw at is rallies was a return to a time when white men ruled over women too. Equal pay, reproductive rights are also not too popular there.

When polled about the economy, people prefereee HRC. Lower and middle class voters preferred her too. It want people who were hurting economically as much as those who feared they would hurt.

turnout in less prosperous areas was either depressed or shifted Trumpwards in some.

It's more than just whites. What about black people not turning out to vote? In some areas there was a big drop in turnout, and as far as I could tell it had something to do with economics!
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/many-in-milwaukee-neighborhood-didnt-vote-and-dont-regret-it.html?_r=0

That's the other side of the tribalism we have seen all year. Not sure what point you're trying to make.
All the rust belt polling said Hillary won on economics- but Trump left her in the dust- 20 points ahead -on immigration/ terrorism. And that's what swung it.
I'm sorry but everyone is trying to change the narrative to suit their own agenda. They don't give a fuck about the oligarchs- they happily voted one in.

any sane person could look at that maggoty pile of orange shit and say to themselves, that's for me, unless fueled by some sort of racism or woman hating. Its just not logical.
I guess they think he will actually do something for them.
He will.
Just not what they expect.

Are we intentionally trying to alienate potential voters? Does the Democratic Party hate white working class voters now?

they can't be for the future.

Attributing all this to racism is just refusing to deal with it. I think this vote was mostly economic, and we'd better listen to the voters.

It is not as if the Dem party hasn't traditionally had a strong economic platform and message, after all. And it's not as if many of these voters didn't support Obama to victory (twice). So claiming that they are somehow so distant from the heart of the party isn't even sensible.

We also have to realize that there was slack voting from some urban/minority pockets with depressed conditions. The economic positions that will appeal to the rural depressed areas will also appeal to urban depressed areas.

Clinton won 52/42 with people who noted that the economy was their top priority, and she won with them in the rust belt.

Trump won on immigration and terrorism, in the 60/40 range on both. He didn't flip votes en masse in the rust belt. We lost them - many stayed home. Turnout was down for us and up for the GOP in those areas.

Turnout up, largely because of immigration and terrorism? That's not voting on economics.

It can be argued that people stayed home because of economics, but there's probably no way to know.

Thank you for this. I agree.