A Post-Mortem On A "Primal Scream" From The American Working Class

As the heads of Neoliberal elites in the U.S. and world can be heard popping in the wake of last night's Trump victory, it behooves us to look beneath at what drove it. I will maintain the warning signs were there all along for those who had eyes to see or ears to hear. Five months ago, in fact, I posted on film maker Michael Moore's prediction that Trump would win the election based on working class rage in the "Brexit states". I wrote, referring to his appearance and statements on Bill Maher's Real Time":

Moore zeroed in on the "Brexit" in the US of A, comprising three  industrial states: Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania with their 64 electoral votes. Those 64  electoral votes were the difference between Mitt Romney becoming the 45th President in 2012 and just another loser to Obama. But this time around, as Moore explained, they could easily be grabbed by Trump - especially given all three feature Republican governors who can gin the voting rules in their favor, including via use of electronic voting machines which were a major factor in Bush winning Ohio in 2004.

This turned out to be the case, as all three 'rust belt' states named were lost to Trump, putting him over 270 to the consternation of all sane people on the planet. (As commentator David Axelrod put it on CNN, the voters had issued "a primal scream". Yep, and they also jumped off the political cliff)

Less noted was how the excitement in Democratic quarters absolutely nose-dived when Bernie Sanders (another change populist) was knocked out by HRC, assisted by the DNC's superdelegate system.. It didn't seem to register at the time that many voters wouldn't just jump on the Hillary ship, or evince the same level of excitement they did for Obama back in 2012. Indeed, exit poll results released this a.m. on CBS showed "Change voters" were swept up by Trump to the tune of 83% to 14% for Clinton. It is hard to believe many of those weren't actually former Sanders' primary voters - who jumped ship to the Donald because they didn't believe they could get real change from Hillary. (Her VP pick of Neolib Tim Kaine also factored into that, say as opposed to picking Elizabeth Warren).

As exit poll numbers and analyses came out this morning these suspicions turned out to be the case. For example, younger voters came out by only 55% this time for Clinton compared to 2012 when it was 7 points higher. Black voters came out to 88 % but this was 8 points lower than before. And Hispanic voters came out for Hillary 65% vs. 71% in 2012. The fact five formerly 'blue' states flipped last night was a case of lowered voter turnout in each of those demographics. Meanwhile, the GOP and Trump benefited from millions of new voters - all mainly blue collar (and many of them registered union Dems) - who came out to turn the tables.

This elicits the question of what happened with the damned polls, i.e.  that they got it so wrong?  In a previous post I cited Charles Seife's excellent book,'Proofiness - How You're Being Fooled By The Numbers' , which explored the problem of getting random samples within large populations. In terms of national polls specifically he indicated the error span could approach as much as 6- 7 percent. This alone could explain a lot of the "flipped states" last night. Another aspect was raised by Frank Luntz on CBS this morning, that Trump voters as a rule "don't want to tell pollsters anything, not because they're afraid but because they are hostile to the system and regard polls as part of it:."  That is something I've long suspected, but it really burst through in the wee hours last night as even Pennsylvania and Wisconsin fell red.

Let me also interject here that FBI Director Comey also merits some of the blame, releasing that absurd letter pertaining to Clinton emails 11 days before the election which - as The Washington Post noted:  "undercut Democratic enthusiasm, and his suggestion that the investigation into her would reopen motivated Republicans to fall in line."

I warned before, in a number of posts, that these  members of the white working class were feeling a lot of strain under the Neoliberal economic boot. Trade deals pushed since the mid -1990s had cost them their jobs, ground them under, even as Dem Neolib cheerleaders like Paul Krugman tried to insist more average people really do benefit from free trade policies like NAFTA. See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/03/krugman-loses-it-brands-bernie.html

Add in the job loss from automation and the failure of corporations to create new jobs - instead sitting on their piles of cash - and you have most of the negative economic inputs. But why latch onto a billionaire like Trump who hasn't paid taxes the past 20 years as their economic lifeboat? Especially given he has no more use for them than Reagan had for "Reagan Democrats" in 1980 and 1984. Good question, but my theory remains:  that they have aggregated to him because he channels their pent up rage and bombast, from his outbursts against immigrants, to dissing the disabled, to rating women and castigating  other ethnic targets. And always wielding the grievance cudgel as he does so.  The Economist really put the Trumpies in perspective in a brilliant piece from last year, noting (Dec. 5, p. 30):

"The anxiety Trump supporters betray by looking for scapegoats says most, of course, about themselves. Typically members of the white lower middle class, they are at once jealous of the small privileges that distinguish them from the toilers below, and bitterly resentful of the faraway government that provides their Social Security, VA care and Medicare.

Remonstrating in hard times, they are the "radical centre" in academic jargon, who turned out before for George Wallace, a populist southern Democrat who ran for President four times in the 1960s and 70s."

The article then identifies the iconic Trump supporter of this "radical center" with a character  from a John Updike novel named Rabbit Angstrom "from whose flabby mouth dripped endless expressions of impotence, anger and glum humor...having retired to Florida to nurse his disappointment".

Interestingly, this fits perfectly the mold of alienated blue collar worker described by Thomas Frank in his 'What's The Matter With Kansas?' , also pointing out how and why the Democrats began looking past the working class and its interests to focus on the shrinking middle class alone.

It is easy to write such (Economist)  essays when one is a member of the entitled Neoliberal scribe class. It is much harder to bear when one must feed a family of five or six on a pair of $11/ hour "gig" jobs  after losing a good paying factory job.  Multiply that millions of times and one can see the angry 'chickens' coming home to roost, as they did last night, turning formerly blue states red.

 We can go through the endless whys and wherefores all we want, the bottom line is a guy totally unqualified to be President is now President Elect. All the "Rabbit Angstroms" who voted for him and now expect him to "make America great again" are in for a rude shock because he won't be able to deliver on any of those insane promises.   Just building the giant wall he wants will cost at least $200b and that is lowballing it. Where will he get the money? (He did ask facetiously at one rally recently 'Will you all help me pay for it?")

He might make greater strides on killing the TPP but even then will need congress to work with, especially the GOP who are all for it. (Siding with Obama). That is another thing that pissed off the working class, Obama's fetish for the very kind of trade deal  (e.g. TPP) that earlier cost them their good jobs. I am convinced they never forgot, and every time Obama went out to stump for Hillary - five to ten thousand more blue collar Dems decided to either stay home or vote for Trump.

A President Trump will have a much tougher time trying to privatize Social Security or cut Medicare, the "entitlements" those like Paul Ryan have been so desperate to whittle away. Indeed, if the Senate Democrats have any testosterone left at all they will use it to summon the nerve to filibuster such nonsense each time it comes up. Just because Mr. Trump managed to get elected doesn't mean he gets carte blanche to do whatever the hell he wants. And that includes trying to repeal Obamacare and rounding up 11 million Mexican immigrants to send home.

In the end, the dyspeptic scream of the alienated American working class last night echoed one from 84 years ago in Germany, which saw Adolf Hitler ascend to power (after President Paul von Hindenburg capitulated when the Nazi party received a majority of seats in the Reichstag). The "good Germans" had spoken and they wanted done with the Weimar (democratic) system which they perceived as inimical to their economic welfare. But with Hitler, all they got in the end was blood, war and devastation.

Make no mistake, the Dems will have to grow a pair of balls  over the next three months and get used to using the same obstruction tactic that the Reeps have employed the past 8 years and had promised to use again.. That means NO Supreme Court picks approved, NONE - unless they meet certain critical litmus tests (e.g. for Roe v. Wade). This is exactly what these turds had planned to do if Hillary had won. (Google John McCain's remarks on it.)

They will also have to get used to using the filibuster to block any and all legislation that doesn't redound to citizens' benefit including Social Security cuts or replacing Medicare with "premium support", e.g. vouchers. If I had had to use them the past four years (only $10k allocated per year)  it would have put me in a $90,000-plus  debt hole and likely propelled a medical bankruptcy.  The WaPo today claimed that the Repukes will try to get social policy issues passed instead using "budget reconciliation" where a 60-vote majority can be sidestepped. But this is effectively a "nuclear option" which the Dems could use on them in a future, more favorable election cycle. It would therefore be dumb for Ryan and the Reepos to try to use it now, say to push for Medicare budget cuts.

One big consolation for Clinton voters: she is ahead in the popular vote (as of this writing) by:

59, 048, 170 to 58, 926, 233 for Trump.

If it holds, and I believe it will - obviously adding as the three remaining states are finally called- Trump will have his work cut out for him to bring in an even bigger slice of the electorate to: a) accept him as their President, and b) not to alienate them with policies or executive orders that they will perceive as hostile. If he dismisses them, he does so at the risk of being a one term wonder.


See also:

The Democrats Abandon the White Working Class to Trump At Their Own Peril

Trump Calls Bernie A "Maniac" - Maybe He's Now Terrified of "the Bern"

In his Richmond, VA rally on Wednesday night, the brash, loudmouthed billionaire Trump,  went off on Bernie Sanders, obviously now petrified that he might actually win the nomination. Or at least push Hillary so far left she will have to keep her words after the election - or forever be deemed a craven politico. What drives him to now designate Bernie the new target? Was it the fact he was deemed the winner of the Dem debate on social media and in most of the blogosphere?

Or was it the  fact "the (prima)Donna" is terrified of having this Vermont Socialist upstart rip some of the billions away and use it for worthy causes - as opposed to buying casinos then filing for bankruptcy? We don't know but definitely something about Bernie has spooked this outlandish fool - who Bill Maher jokingly refers to being "fathered by a red-haired Orangutan" into belching this balderdash:

"I watched Hillary last night, 'we're gonna give this, we're gonna give that'. The poor woman she's gonna give everything away because this maniac standing on her right is giving everything away so she's following. That's what's happening. This socialist/ communist ...no one wants to say it."

To which the gathered low I.Q. audience roared with approval, showing again why esteemed journals like The Economist consider them all halfwits, or at least ignorant buffoons. Because anyone who'd take "the Donna" at his words would have to be that  -failing to even  distinguish a democratic socialist from a Marxist-Leninist communist.

Also, Bernie never said he "wants to give everything away", not at all. He merely wants all - especially the richest - to pay their fair share in the nation in which they've reaped enormous wealth, often by exploiting its labor.

But never mind, those nuanced distinctions are missed for an applauding crowd featuring an average I.Q. of 90.

The sickening aspect? According to new polls Trump is leading in 4 states: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.

As focus group guy Frank Luntz pointed out this morning, "no one has ever won those four states and not won the nomination".   (Luntz also noted how the Republican- based social media is absolutely "vicious" - and "every hour they are coming after each other". Worse, "eighty percent of Trump's follower will stay with him no matter what they learn."  In other words, even if they learn he is into child porn, a la Jared Fogle -  they'd stick with this fool. Incredible!)

This means there is a good chance Trump - the REAL Maniac - could actually win the Reep nomination. In which case we'd would see the rise of another demagogue just like the Germans 83 years ago when Adolf Hitler ascended to the Chancellorship. Oh....fuck no! I've gone "full Godwin" on this stupid shit! Sorry! My bad!

But stay tuned for a future post in which I show that in today's polarized political -cultural environment the manifestation of Godwin's law at some point is inevitable. Why? Because the past has this nasty tendency to repeat, but few of us - most historically deficient - fail to see it.

(Those who need a refresher course, get any documentaries of Hitler's speeches before he ascended to the Chancellorship, e.g. Leni Reifenstahl's 'Triumph of the Will', or  'The Nazis- A Warning From History'. Study the faces of the manic crowds in those black and white films and compare them to the faces of those at Trump rallies. If you are not able to see the similarities, and aren't scared shitless, you really need to double as a zombie on 'The Walking Dead' !)

If GOP Wins Big Tonight Will Dems Use Filibusters Come January?

There is the real prospect that the Repukes could seize control of the Senate when the dust settles after this mid-term. Right now the pukes hold 45 seats and the Dems 55 (including Bernie Sanders a socialist who votes with them), so if they gain at least 6 seats - which is possible- they would end up with a 51-49 majority in the Senate as well as a sizable majority in the House which they've held since 2010.

I don't believe this will actually happen, as I instead see the Ds hanging on by their fingernails, with a a 50-50 standoff in the Senate - the tie vote going to VP Joe Biden. So it would be a 'win' albeit a narrow won. But anything is possible. A primary indicator is the North Carolina race. If Kay Hagen wins (assuming too many African-Americans aren't hindered from voting), then look for the Dems to hold on, same if Mark Udall edges by Cory Gardener in Colorado.

But what if, as Nate Silver forecasts (75 % probability) the Repubs DO take the Senate? Then congress will be totally in their hands with only Obama the 'firewall' to act against their insanity using his veto power. (And veto he must, and veto, veto and veto - until his left hand goes into spasm.)

The good thing is that whatever advantage the Reeps manage to secure it won't be sufficient to get any of their wackier legislation passed - including rolling back the Affordable Care Act, increasing interest on private student loans (from 6.8% to 8%) or militarizing the southern border as part of "immigration reform"

However, in order to prevent these nutso laws being passed one of two things must happen: 1) The Democrats need to use the filibuster - demanding 60 vote majorities the same way the Reeps did when they were a Senate minority, and 2) If the Dems punk out with (1) and lose their cojones when it counts, then Obama must be ready with his veto pen.

Indeed, I would argue that if the Reeps do gain the Senate and hold the House (99% likely), the Democrats must become as "obstructionist" as the Reeps were when they had only 45 seats.  That means using the filibuster at every turn to block all legislation issuing from the Reep zone, including any approval of the Keystone pipeline.  After all, the Reeps will have been rewarded for their obstructionism so why not the Dems?

Harder to figure, as Scarborough noted this a.m.,  is why Americans would reward these jerks anyway, given all they've done is block Obama's agenda at every turn.  They have contributed to the worst congress in history with their do-nothingism and have a 20 percent approval rating (this is compared to 42% for Obama in the most recent polls).

Repub pollster Frank Luntz, this morning on CBS, opined the election is not really about Obama at all, but about "Washington", but I am not sure I buy it. Tune in any time to FOX, including Hannity and O'Reilly, and all you hear and see is anti-Obama blather. It's no wonder their viewers (surveys show 47 % of repukes go to no other station) and end up brainwashed Obama haters.

If in fact it is really about Washington, as Luntz suggests, then it is the Republicans who should lose big because they are the party - via their incessant 'call in' filibusters, who've mucked it up the most. Especially as Luntz said that in his own polling what mattered to voters the most was "accountability and getting things done". Well, Katy bar the door, the Repukes fail on all counts there! Or is it people are really living in a parallels universe where the Reepos have been beyond reproach in their work?

Whatever the outcome in a potential GOP Senate takeover, 51 seats or 54 (making a 9 seat gain and the greatest since 1994 and the 'Contract On America') the Dems cannot allow themselves to be suckered into accepting that any R-takeover translates to a "mandate". It doesn't. It amounts to a temporary advantage that will likely be reversed in the next election. The same as the GOP 2002 gains were reversed in 2006.

The main thing we need is for the Democrats to stand with the people, come hell or high water, and that means filibustering whenever it's needed - which will likely be about every week!