Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Previously, I scoffed at the notion that there was as much crossover between the Sanders and Trump camps, but even I have to admit I was wrong. I, like probably many of us, was thinking of myself and like-minded people, because I managed to fall into the trap of believing that Sanders' voter base was 20-somethings who are pissed about income inequality. While that is a sizable and not inconsequential base (one that I've noticed many of Clinton's media supporters love to yell "WE DON'T NEED YOUR VOTE" at, but I digress) we're all forgetting about constituencies like West Virginia. Like this absolute piece of shit article that treats everyone in that state, and others who have suffered immensely from economic downturn in small town America, as if they are totally irrelevant. Desperation is very real, but that makes for uncomfortable realities, especially for the pundits who make their living reporting on the election game. So let's just call them disgruntled white men and move on! There is no other possible way they would show the voting habits that they have shown.
This isn't meant to support the "Bernie or Bust" movement, which is absurd and not something I am apart of. But acting like there are only four or five neat little boxes to pile the electorate into has gotten us in a whole lot of trouble before. And let's be clear: Clinton has not shown once to have a good understanding of voters. The Dems can very well still blow this election, and if they do it will be because they have shown to be wholly incompetent.
In agree that the Democrats have, traditionally, showed an uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and someone who is "not a natural politician" like HRC worries me.
I'm not so worried about her lack of white support in comparison to 2008, because I think a lot of her white support in states like WV and OH and PA were due to the fact that she was running against a black man. But I am worried about her ability to win the Bernie voters -- young and liberal or neither -- now that she's the almost certain nominee.
It does seem like we're back to the notion that Sanders and Trump are speaking to/demagoging the same fears. I agree that there's an ivory tower around journalists in DC and NYC -- or in this case London, where the author is likely trying to reassure a nervous liberal London readership -- that prohibits understanding why why people vote the way that they do. I think you hear journalists reflecting the language of campaigns which really do run on data and demographics in increasingly sophisticated ways. But that may be inadequate to address a decision (voting) that is at least in part emotional, especially now at the end of one era (Obama) and the beginning of the next, and with the worst of the economic crisis behind us but a (for many) less appealing future in front of us. Sanders/Trump share an emotional language and invective towards easy enemies (Bankers/Mexicans) that goes far in times like these.
We're on our 14th consecutive day with measurable precipitation here inside the Beltway. There's been no sun to speak of, and none likely until at least the weekend, then after what looks like another week of clouds and rain. Everyone is talking about the gloom. It's mid-May. The best time of year in this city. What happened to our famous spring weather we're promised after a bleak winter? Outside its America?
Last edited: