Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › and the answer is more complicated than you might think
- This topic has 19 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
— X —.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 23, 2016 at 5:39 am #59277
znModeratorWhat the conventional wisdom about Trump and working-class whites gets wrong
http://www.vox.com/world/2016/11/22/13702842/donald-trump-working-class-whites
The standard narrative of Donald Trump’s victory is simple: Trump won in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania on the back of unprecedentedly strong support from white working-class voters. Those making less than $30,000 swung to Trump by 16 percentage points relative to the 2012 election, narrowing the Democratic lead among low-income voters to a mere 12 points. Very few of the voters were people of color.
The natural upshot of this analysis is that class was a huge reason why Trump won, that poor whites found Trump’s attack on economic elites revitalizing. It was “the revenge of the forgotten class,” as ProPublica’s Alec MacGillis puts it.
But is that really true? A new study from the UK’s Resolution Foundation, a well-regarded think tank focusing on economics, looked at this question in some statistical depth — and the answer is more complicated than you might think.
Researchers Stephen Clarke and Dan Tomlinson looked at the effect of income on Trump’s support — and, at a surface level, found a correlation between income in a particular area and support for Donald Trump. But when they took a closer look, they found that this effect was less powerful than it seems. Instead, sociodemographic factors, particularly race and education, ended up being more important explanations of the unexpected Trump surge.
That suggests the vaunted swing among voters making less than $30,000 might not have happened simply because of the fact that they make less than $30,000. It might have more to do with the fact that these people tend to be less educated and white — factors that incline people to support far-right anti-immigrant politicians around the world, like France’s Marine Le Pen and the Netherlands’ Geert Wilders.
Now, the report doesn’t disprove that economics played a key role in the election. Indeed, if you read it, the authors are very clear that they think the economy played some role — and the data isn’t fine-grained enough to answer the question one way or another.
The point, instead, is that some observers are being too quick to explain this election through a simple economic lens, based on the mere fact that Trump won bigger among the white working class than Romney did. It’s not that simple.
What the study found
To figure out why Trump performed better against Clinton than Mitt Romney did against Obama, Clarke and Tomlinson looked at the degree of change in county-level results between Romney’s totals in 2012 and Trump’s in 2016. The goal was to figure out what characteristics of these counties correlated most strongly with a shift toward the GOP — whether, say, wealthier or poorer counties swung harder toward Trump.The biggest factor, according Clarke and Tomlinson’s regression analysis, was education. In counties with large percentages of people with high school degrees or less, Trump got a lot more support than Romney did. In counties with more educated voters, Trump’s gains were far more modest. The correlation is extremely strong:
Interestingly, this makes it difficult to isolate the economic impact. In Clarke and Tomlinson’s initial analysis, it looked like there was a real correlation between household income in a county and its swing to Trump, with less affluent places backing him more than they had Romney. A cursory reading of the report would suggest this was one of its major findings.
But the problem is that their initial statistical study didn’t take into account the effects of education. Low-income places also tend to have lower levels of educational attainment, so it’s hard to say whether income had any effect independently of education. Their tests showed that once you factor in the powerful effect of education, income ceases to be a strong predictor of a Trump vote.
“When you add in the education variable, it just knocks a lot of stuff out,” Clarke told me when I called him to get more clarity on his findings.
This wasn’t the case with other demographic variables. Clarke and Tomlinson also found that counties with more white voters (surprise!) shifted far more heavily to Trump.
Similarly, areas with more foreign-born residents were less likely, all things considered, to shift toward Trump.
Clarke and Tomlinson also set up what’s called an interactive term, a way of testing how multiple variables interact, between a county’s whiteness and its education level. The idea here was to figure out whether less educated people in general, or only less educated whites, swung hard toward Trump.
The findings were very clear: Only less educated whites were significantly more likely to have swung to Trump. “As the share of the white population in a county increases, so does the effect of the share of people with only a high-school education,” Clarke and Tomlinson write.
Now, Trump won whites overall handily, regardless of education or income. But Mitt Romney also won whites nationwide; the question here is what Trump did to improve on Romney’s performance. And on that question, Clarke and Tomlinson’s data tells a consistent story: White people in less educated areas swung heavily to Trump, while people of color and more educated whites did not.
“Demographics — particularly race and foreign born — and education were the strongest predictors [of a swing to Trump],” Clarke says.
Why the link between education and the economy is so important
What to make of these findings? The principal takeaway is that the settled narrative — Trump won by winning working-class whites away from Democrats — is more complicated than it seems.
The “white working class” theory almost always has an economic underpinning. If Trump won because of a revolt of poor whites, the theory goes, then he must have won as a result of poor whites’ economic grievances. Trump’s economic populism — his attacks on elites and free trade agreements — must have resonated.
But the fact that education was actually more important than income, to the point where it entirely cancels out income’s role in Clarke and Tomlinson’s regression, suggests an alternative explanation: that one’s low levels of education, not low income, is the key explanatory variable.
A useful comparison here is the rise of European far-right parties. These parties, like the Front National in France or the Party for Freedom, have a very similar message to Trump’s. They are populist, in the sense that they’re highly critical of the current establishment, but are (like Trump) principally defined by their xenophobia and hostile approach toward minority groups.
Scholars of the European far right generally believe that these parties’ appeal is fundamentally cultural, not economic: that they draw support as a result of racial and cultural anxieties about immigration rather than economic anxiety created by globalization and the decline of the middle class. One of their key pieces of evidence is the priority of education over the economy — the kind of effect we see in Clarke and Tomlinson’s study.
Study after study finds that income isn’t a particularly strong predictor of far-right support once you account for education. Education, instead, is far more important. Less educated whites who do well financially — think a successful plumber or shopkeeper — are as, if not more, likely to support the far right as poor whites.
This finding, that education matters much more than income, is extremely consistent. Eric Kaufmann, a professor at the University of London who studies this phenomenon, dubs it an “iron law” of far-right studies.
This suggests that the reason people support these parties isn’t about income or employment. It’s something else, something strongly related to their education level — something that seems to affect their tolerance for cultural difference. While far-right supporters in Europe aren’t consistently poorer, they are consistently more hostile to immigrants than other white natives.
This could be the story of the 2016 election. It could be that Trump’s key innovation was a more open illustration of the power of white ethnic grievance — that his plan to ban Muslim immigration actively attracted low-educated Americans in the same way the Party for Freedom’s call to ban Muslim immigration attracted low-educated Dutch voters.
This kind of cultural explanation would make sense — it’s Trump’s white identity politics, and not his economic message, that most clearly distinguished him from previous Republicans like Romney. Studies from the GOP primary, and pre-election polls, found high racial resentment was a far better predictor of a voter’s likelihood of supporting Trump than any economic variable.
Clarke and Tomlinson’s research can’t resolve this question one way or another. County-level data isn’t specific enough to tell us how individuals in those counties behaved. It could be that wealthy people who live in low-education counties were less likely to vote for Trump than their working-class neighbors. Or it could be the other way around.
Regardless, it suggests that the push among some liberals, like Bernie Sanders, to respond to this election with a “populist” economic message may not be the right approach. If the swing toward Trump among whites really was about racial and cultural anxieties — as some good research suggests — then they will have misdiagnosed the problem.
The issue wouldn’t be that Democrats “forgot” white workers; it’s that Trump promised them the kind of white identity politics they’ve been yearning for.
November 23, 2016 at 6:27 am #59278
— X —ParticipantIt might have more to do with the fact that these people tend to be less educated and white
And ……. scene.
No need to read any further.
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr SeussNovember 23, 2016 at 7:13 am #59283
bnwBlockedIt might have more to do with the fact that these people tend to be less educated and white
And ……. scene.
No need to read any further.
They still don’t get it. To vote republican and for Trump to them IS racism. They won’t listen to those white voters who fear their jobs will be sent out of this country. No, they only see white meat turkeys they believe is theirs. Its jobs, the economy, rule of law, accountability that all voters capable of rational thought want but still the racism drum never misses a beat. Its good that most people have already tuned it out. Time for positive change.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
November 23, 2016 at 7:31 am #59284
PA RamParticipantThey still don’t get it. To vote republican and for Trump to them IS racism. They won’t listen to those white voters who fear their jobs will be sent out of this country. No, they only see white meat turkeys they believe is theirs. Its jobs, the economy, rule of law, accountability that all voters capable of rational thought want but still the racism drum never misses a beat. Its good that most people have already tuned it out. Time for positive change.
And yet they sent the same Republican congress back…and then some.
People talk change. They mostly vote from their ideology or habits.
Obama wasn’t a dictator. This was a team effort on things like trade bills.
People vote to send incumbents back time and time again. It’s the OTHER guy they want out–not theirs.
I think Trump’s biggest asset was running against Clinton. People did not so much vote FOR Trump as they did AGAINST her. People do not particularly like Trump. They hated her.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick
November 23, 2016 at 7:32 am #59285
wvParticipant“….it’s Trump’s white identity politics, and not his economic message, that most clearly distinguished him from previous Republicans like Romney. Studies from the GOP primary, and pre-election polls, found high racial resentment was a far better predictor of a voter’s likelihood of supporting Trump than any economic variable….
Regardless, it suggests that the push among some liberals, like Bernie Sanders, to respond to this election with a “populist” economic message may not be the right approach. If the swing toward Trump among whites really was about racial and cultural anxieties — as some good research suggests — then they will have misdiagnosed the problem.
The issue wouldn’t be that Democrats “forgot” white workers; it’s that Trump promised them the kind of white identity politics they’ve been yearning for.”
——Well, i dont have any doubt that “its complicated.” Many factors converged among several factions of Dem and Rep voters, of all classes, sexes and races.
But its pretty obvious that Race and Education were huge factors among some factions and Class was a factor in some factions. And all three mixed together in hard-to-untangle ways.
I’ve noticed that Trumpies dont like to admit that Race and Education were factors.
I’ve also noticed Dems dont like to admit class and neoliberalism trade-policies were factors.…At any rate is this writer suggesting Bernie should try a more racist approach instead of a populist approach? Or is the writer suggesting Bernie should try a neoliberal approach?
w
vNovember 23, 2016 at 7:34 am #59286— X —ParticipantIt might have more to do with the fact that these people tend to be less educated and white
And ……. scene.
No need to read any further.
They still don’t get it. To vote republican and for Trump to them IS racism. They won’t listen to those white voters who fear their jobs will be sent out of this country. No, they only see white meat turkeys they believe is theirs. Its jobs, the economy, rule of law, accountability that all voters capable of rational thought want but still the racism drum never misses a beat. Its good that most people have already tuned it out. Time for positive change.
That, and the constant attribution of ignorance to Trump voters. We’re not as educated, so we apparently only think on a base level. We’re just not evolved enough to see the big picture or smart enough to determine the greater good. It’s probably all the banjo music. It can be very distracting. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to take my 11th grade education and tackle this problem with these shoelaces. I’ve tried the rabbit ears thing, but it’s not working out. Maybe I just need to find the time to take some night classes between my two jobs.
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr SeussNovember 23, 2016 at 7:38 am #59288wvParticipantIt might have more to do with the fact that these people tend to be less educated and white
And ……. scene.
No need to read any further.
——————
Well, ok, but the numbers are pretty clear. Race and education were factors.
I dont know why you cant relax and admit that. It doesn’t mean every or even ‘most’ Trump voters uneducated or racists.
I mean I know plenty of black folks who can admit that a ton of black voters voted for Obama “only because he was black”.
America is a crazy-zany mixed-up place. Ya know.
I mean do you think only enlightened, wise, holy, social-justice crusaders voted for Trump? How many of them types ARE there in this here nation…
w
vNovember 23, 2016 at 7:42 am #59290wvParticipant<
They still don’t get it. To vote republican and for Trump to them IS racism. They won’t listen to those white voters who fear their jobs will be sent out of this country————-
Well I’ll say it again.What i notice is that
Dems dont like to admit that Jobs/Trade-Policy/Class
were a part of this.Reps dont like to admit that racism/education
were a part of this.Its a big country. Lots of factions. Lots of layers. Not all of them layers are pretty.
w
vNovember 23, 2016 at 7:45 am #59291wvParticipantAnd yet they sent the same Republican congress back…and then some.
People talk change..
———-
Interesting point.
w
vNovember 23, 2016 at 8:22 am #59298— X —ParticipantI mean do you think only enlightened, wise, holy, social-justice crusaders voted for Trump? How many of them types ARE there in this here nation…
w
vOf course not. I’m just tired of the constant pigeon-holing of middle Americans as less thans because they don’t have any higher education on their CV’s. Why make a point of it? What difference does it make? Does it make me less informed or signify an inability to think critically? Am I somehow less enlightened? Do I think only linearly? Why shouldn’t I take exception to that? What if I constantly harped on the idea that college students don’t know how to think for themselves? What if I kept suggesting that colleges are like liberal cults that are breeding grounds for mindless twits who only know how to parrot the things with which they’ve been indoctrinated, and it’s THEY who are responsible for the past 8 years of moral regression and fiscal irresponsibility? Would it bother you if every article you read suggested as much?
-
This reply was modified 8 years ago by -- X --.
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr SeussNovember 23, 2016 at 10:59 am #59309PA RamParticipantI mean do you think only enlightened, wise, holy, social-justice crusaders voted for Trump? How many of them types ARE there in this here nation…
w
vOf course not. I’m just tired of the constant pigeon-holing of middle Americans as less thans because they don’t have any higher education on their CV’s. Why make a point of it? What difference does it make? Does it make me less informed or signify an inability to think critically? Am I somehow less enlightened? Do I think only linearly? Why shouldn’t I take exception to that? What if I constantly harped on the idea that college students don’t know how to think for themselves? What if I kept suggesting that colleges are like liberal cults that are breeding grounds for mindless twits who only know how to parrot the things with which they’ve been indoctrinated, and it’s THEY who are responsible for the past 8 years of moral regression and fiscal irresponsibility? Would it bother you if every article you read suggested as much?
I keep hearing this almost anti-education–or at least formal education, in your posts, X. If I’m reading that wrong I apologize. But I think there really is an anti-intellectualism movement in the country. I think there is a “dumbing down” of things. Have you watched CNN lately?
You personally, are far from dumb. One does not need a formal education to be informed and smart about things. It does, however, take an intellectual curiosity to find and understand the large amount of information available today. My experience is that a lot of blue collar workers–and maybe white collar ones, just don’t have the time for it. They remain ignorant on a variety of subjects because they either don’t care or would prefer their information from a Facebook meme or a Rush Limbaugh rant on the way home from work.
I know these guys. I work with them.
I also have an 11th grade education. I did get my GED and I put in about a year of college when I went into the air force.
I’ve never been a particularly “formal” education kind of guy. I wanted to follow my curiosity. And when I did find something interesting, I wanted to know a lot about it. I studied it. There are many subjects that I am woefully ignorant about and I’m aware of what those are. There are things I WISH I had more interest in–a lot of practical things, really.
But the reality is what it is and there is no point in denying it.
Yes…ignorant people vote. A large part of the country votes but takes very little time to really know a candidate or the issues.
I hear blue collar workers all day long(or evening since I work 2nd shift)and I heard many of them before this election blasting Clinton for emails or this or that or the other thing. I didn’t hear one person tell me WHY they liked Trump.
How could they?
Trump’s plans were vague at best. Slogans. And more anti-Hillary than anything else.
I believe that is how people voted. And she deserved it. She was an awful candidate and it’s true that she didn’t give anyone a reason TO vote for her besides the fact that she wasn’t Trump. At the end of the day that was still enough to win the popular vote.
So were those 1. 5 million votes or so more of the popular vote all from college educated voters? I doubt it. At the end of the day it is also rural vs. urban. Those lines are much clearer.
I hated voting for her. And if she had won it would not have been a vote FOR her. It would have been what it was–a vote AGAINST Trump. It’s my belief that this is what this particular election was about more than anything else.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick
November 23, 2016 at 11:03 am #59310bnwBlockedThey still don’t get it. To vote republican and for Trump to them IS racism. They won’t listen to those white voters who fear their jobs will be sent out of this country. No, they only see white meat turkeys they believe is theirs. Its jobs, the economy, rule of law, accountability that all voters capable of rational thought want but still the racism drum never misses a beat. Its good that most people have already tuned it out. Time for positive change.
And yet they sent the same Republican congress back…and then some.
People talk change. They mostly vote from their ideology or habits.
Obama wasn’t a dictator. This was a team effort on things like trade bills.
People vote to send incumbents back time and time again. It’s the OTHER guy they want out–not theirs.
I think Trump’s biggest asset was running against Clinton. People did not so much vote FOR Trump as they did AGAINST her. People do not particularly like Trump. They hated her.
Wrong, so wrong. Trump didn’t have any say in the republican congressional races. He will two years from now because his voters will follow his lead as long as he keeps his promises.
You say Obama is not a dictator? So his murdering americans without a trial, his support for the N,DAA- I know YOU know what that entails, and his utter contempt for the peoples house by his legislating through executive orders is not being a dictator? Then WTF is a dictator?
Incumbent republicans better realize it is a different time and they either get on board or get out of the way. People want solutions to problems and they want it now.
The people most definitely voted FOR Trump. Need to work on some self reflection and take another look at that election map. Party doesn’t mean as much any more to voters. The people voted for change. Not Obama change. They voted FOR Trump.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
November 23, 2016 at 11:12 am #59312PA RamParticipantThe people most definitely voted FOR Trump. Need to work on some self reflection and take another look at that election map. Party doesn’t mean as much any more to voters. The people voted for change. Not Obama change. They voted FOR Trump.
Much like climate change, bnw, we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. I won’t argue in circles with you. No point. I expressed my belief. Incumbents win reelection at something like 95 percent. That isn’t change. If your argument is that they voted for change with Trump but are just behind in sending the other guys back I have to scratch my head. It doesn’t make much sense. But I’m not trying to change your mind. I’m just saying that I’m not changing mine.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick
November 23, 2016 at 11:15 am #59313
InvaderRamModeratorOf course not. I’m just tired of the constant pigeon-holing of middle Americans as less thans because they don’t have any higher education on their CV’s. Why make a point of it? What difference does it make? Does it make me less informed or signify an inability to think critically? Am I somehow less enlightened? Do I think only linearly? Why shouldn’t I take exception to that? What if I constantly harped on the idea that college students don’t know how to think for themselves? What if I kept suggesting that colleges are like liberal cults that are breeding grounds for mindless twits who only know how to parrot the things with which they’ve been indoctrinated, and it’s THEY who are responsible for the past 8 years of moral regression and fiscal irresponsibility? Would it bother you if every article you read suggested as much?
my own personal belief. many humans are like this. not just the people who voted for trump.
i mean why did people vote for obama? as someone said before probably for some very superficial reasons. only because he was black. because of some stupid slogan of “change”.
these elections appeal to the most basic desires and fears of humans. it’s all dumb. in my opinion. the people who voted for obama are every bit as ignorant as the people who voted for trump.
not everyone of course. but it played a significant part.
November 23, 2016 at 12:40 pm #59316wvParticipant<
The people most definitely voted FOR Trump. Need to work on some self reflection and take another look at that election map..
===========
Actually ‘the people’ voted for The-Hillary. She won by about 1.5 million votes.
The Electoral-College voted for The Donald.Its all pretty complicated. Even the voting-system itself. The one that comes in second is The President.
w
vNovember 23, 2016 at 12:54 pm #59318wvParticipantOf course not. I’m just tired of the constant pigeon-holing of middle Americans as less thans because they don’t have any higher education on their CV’s. Why make a point of it? What difference does it make? ……irresponsibility? Would it bother you if every article you read suggested as much?
============
Well first off let me say, YOU are one of my alltime favorite internet posters. Seriously. I thought that even when things were ugly back in the old
days of fury and flame.Second, i dunno why you seem to “identify” with “trump voters”. Trump voters takes in a HUGE tapestry of different kinds of voters.
When a writer concludes after looking at the numbers that non-formally-educated folks swung more for Trump than Hillary…it just is what it is.I mean, lets say, someone started studying Bernie/Jill voters. And they found that a big faction of privileged white potheads voted for Bernie/Jill. Or lets say they really delved DEEP into racism and found that White Bernie/Jill voters didnt display the ‘overt’ racism of the Klan, but they DID hold all kinds of closet racist ideas, such as ‘blacks are more violent’ and ‘they wouldnt want their daughters marrying black folks’ etc, and so forth. Well, I would not get all defensive about that. I’d just say…”damn, aint that inter-estin”.
This is a messed-up planet. There’s gonna be gazillions of messed-up, wounded, voters voting for both Dems and Reps. But dammit it just so happens the faction of OVERT-in-your-face-Racist/Nationalists tend to vote for Trump rather than Hillary. The numbers just lead me to say that.
It would no surprise me in the LEAST if more white, ‘formally educated’ ‘closet racists’ voted for The Hillary.
Moreover, on a different tangent, some of us here, dont link “critical thinking skills” with “formal education”. I sure dont. Chomsky has a whole schtick on how “formal education” is mainly an ‘indoctrination system’ that weeds out
the people who ask too many ornery questions. Etc.We are just trying to figure out some things about the election. Looks like a lot of overt-racists went for Trump. Looks like a lot of dipshit “fuck the poor” neoliberal white-collar assholes went for Hillary.
Aint Amerika grand.
w
vNovember 23, 2016 at 1:18 pm #59320bnwBlocked<
The people most definitely voted FOR Trump. Need to work on some self reflection and take another look at that election map..
===========
Actually ‘the people’ voted for The-Hillary. She won by about 1.5 million votes.
The Electoral-College voted for The Donald.Its all pretty complicated. Even the voting-system itself. The one that comes in second is The President.
w
vNo the Hildabeast lost by 1.5 million votes since 3 million illegals voted.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
November 23, 2016 at 1:21 pm #59321
snowmanParticipantTo me it’s simple salesmanship regardless of income or education. Trump’s campaign did a better job of selling him as a champion of “the people” and an agent of change, and painting Hillary as crooked. Voters ignored his personality, his alck of political experience, his clear potential for conflict of interest and the hipocracy in his message of creating jobs in America while employing people overseas. Elections are popularity contests, not a judgement of who is the most qualified.
November 23, 2016 at 1:25 pm #59323bnwBlockedWe are just trying to figure out some things about the election. Looks like a lot of overt-racists went for Trump. Looks like a lot of dipshit “fuck the poor” neoliberal white-collar assholes went for Hillary.
There you go again, “overt” racists vote for Trump. Pathetic. Although never owning up to your weakness makes you vulnerable come election time.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
November 23, 2016 at 1:40 pm #59327— X —ParticipantI keep hearing this almost anti-education–or at least formal education, in your posts, X. If I’m reading that wrong I apologize. But I think there really is an anti-intellectualism movement in the country. I think there is a “dumbing down” of things. Have you watched CNN lately?
You’re not wrong. I am anti-formal education – if there is such a thing. I look at what it’s producing, and it makes me cringe. And CNN is a joke. They’re the top of the liberal media bias totem pole.
I also have an 11th grade education. I did get my GED and I put in about a year of college when I went into the air force.
I’ve never been a particularly “formal” education kind of guy. I wanted to follow my curiosity. And when I did find something interesting, I wanted to know a lot about it. I studied it. There are many subjects that I am woefully ignorant about and I’m aware of what those are. There are things I WISH I had more interest in–a lot of practical things, really.
Nice. I didn’t know that, so thanks for sharing,.
I hear blue collar workers all day long(or evening since I work 2nd shift)and I heard many of them before this election blasting Clinton for emails or this or that or the other thing. I didn’t hear one person tell me WHY they liked Trump.
How could they?
Trump’s plans were vague at best. Slogans. And more anti-Hillary than anything else.
I believe that is how people voted. And she deserved it. She was an awful candidate and it’s true that she didn’t give anyone a reason TO vote for her besides the fact that she wasn’t Trump. At the end of the day that was still enough to win the popular vote.
I don’t doubt that you might have heard those things from some blue-collar workers. I, too, have heard similar things while out and about on different jobs. But I don’t agree that Trump had no plans or that they were vague. The thing his detractors didn’t bother to do was notice that he is a ‘big picture’ kind of guy who assembles teams to help realize those plans. That’s all he ever did as a civilian. He actually had many plans if anyone bothered to listen. Really listen. Secure the southern border, back out of the TPP, back out of the Iran Agreement, offer incentives to Corporations to return jobs to the U.S., reform health care, reform immigration, let Generals loose to do their jobs and not encumber them with politically correct directives during war, zap the EPA and its bloated budget, tap into our natural resources to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, appoint Constitutionalists to the Supreme Court, reform the V.A., etc. He said the same things over and over and over. What was vague was Hillary’s ten thousand different slogans and her strange obsession with intimate pressers and her courting of rich celebrities while simultaneously trying to convince everyone she was in touch with the plight of poor Americans.
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr Seuss -
This reply was modified 8 years ago by
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
