Home | About | Donate

Nobody Likes Trump


Nobody Likes Trump

John Atcheson

One of the most stunning numbers in politics is the fact that some 40 percent of those polled still approve of Trump. Pundits, politicians and the media seem to walk around in a state of disbelief that this buffoon retains any support at all.

In reality, it’s no mystery.


The mainstream dems are holding Biden in reserve so that they can guarantee another D-feat for the neoliberal team. I suspect most “centrist” dems would rather see Trump re-elected than a progressive from their “own” party (I’m looking at you two, Nancy and Dianne).


The Dem “leadership” is still holding onto the failed strategy of years/decades past that lost the Congress, Presidency, SCOTUS and numerous other courts to right-wing “conservatives”. They colluded with the de-regulation and revolving-door government Ofm By and FOR the richest - the so-called “growth” that is used to rationalize the Grand Con - the theft from America’s people and civilian priorities to serve vast wealth, usury, and exploitation.

That same MO is still to serve the rich and corporate parasites and “the middle” - WTF is “the middle” but a mechanism and code for status quo vulture capitalist and fear over truth, a viable, healthy planet, standing-up for the little guy, gal, and family, especially all those that were jettisoned by the Dem “leadership” to serve bankers, wall street, for-profit health-care, the uber-wealthy, corporate/banker/wall street interests and war-machine at the expense of all those millions left behind as the rich grew even fatter and more greed-driven, and the military Industrial Congressional Complex gobbled-up about $54 cents on the dollar of tax monies! Military cronies grew rich and stocks grew as the “little people” struggled just to survive! That “centrist” fraud still guides the “Dem Leadership”, not what is now falsely termed “the left”. Bernoe Sanders represents the heart of America, NOT the “Dem Leadership”!

Such abject craven collusion has been the Dem “leadership” strategy and they still will not really budge from that utterly failed stupidity and failure to seize the political day. Bernie Sanders and the other “progressive left” representatives and advocates are the future…if there is any future left after the mindless destruction, corruption and coming other endless wars of the trump regime the “Dem leadership” also empowered in America as they abandoned the Common Good to repeat the service to the same energies as R’Con Republicans…they all have made any sustainable egalitarian not-for-profit - not “Vulture Capitalist” future less and less likely…


Biden would be worse than Trump. He may come in a more conventional package and have the ability to sound pleasant and reasonable (shades of Obama), but in truth he’s a war-mongering toned-down racist, and believer that women’s place is at home. The media will applaud him and refer to him as the ‘obvious’ choice, just like they did with HRC. If he were to be elected, he would look so ‘normal’ compared to Trump that he would make neo-liberalism look sane again. NOW is the time to thwart the corporate whores and elect someone who actually gives a damn about the constituency.


The MSM has already done that! With quotes like: " Biden is the most electable; Biden is the most experienced; Biden appeals to the center;" ad nauseum! Just like they did with HRC, I think the super,delegates have already selected Joe.


I have always said way back when Carter was elected to ONE TERM. The Dems gave up the party of FDR & LBJ when they went “centrist” with Carter and then Clinton/Obama. In reality the thing Sanders did and is doing is realigning the Dems with their political roots of FDR/LBJ.


Simple question - what have the Dems done for the people of this country since Trump took office?


Most of Atcheson’s observations here are very good, but only because the people he calls “centrists” are not central to much–not to the opinions of the nation nor the voting populace, still less to their own party’s voters, and also not to some hypothetical point “between” the parties.

It’s more than a quibble, too, to note that there’s nothing novel in Trump’s bigotry against immigrants. It has been fairly routine Republican drivel since it mostly ceased to be such routine Democratic drivel with the collapse of the “solid Democratic South” over the 1960s leading into the Nixon-McGovern election in '72.

But the goal of Democratic “leadership” is not exactly that Democrats win elections. It is that members of a particular cadre of Democrats win elections. Handing some elections to Republicans with unpopular positions is a small setback to that goal. Handing any election to a candidate–and, by extension, potentially, a movement–that is popular sets those goals back considerably. Moreover, since the funders of both parties are set against the natural and inevitable interests of the populace in relative equality, this tendency gets strongly reinforced by money. And, once various offences are involved, individual politicians and their allies acquire strong personal reasons to retain control.

What all this means is that losing to Donald Trump again is again not going to change the minds of the Democratic Party, whatever it may or may not do for Democratic voters. Whatever change happens within or without the Democrats, it cannot be a “Vote Blue” wave.


Actually, there is no clear pattern, “centrist” Denicrats do well in some areas, progressives in others. And Clinton did win by millions of votes despite an uninspiring campaign, decades of GOP demonization, all the sniping from the left, widespread misogyny, a press endlessly highlighting the non-issue of e-mails, interference from Comey just before the election, and maybe Russian hacking too.

And like the Republicans, Democrats need a coalition to win. Moderates need progressives and progressives need moderates. Insisting on a narrow focus may attract a few voters but lose plenty more.


Are you serious? They have had zero houses of power, and no executive orders power either. The dems are so restricted they couldn’t fart after a large can of beans.


Nothing is worse than Dump.


Complain a lot!!!


That’s ridiculous and if authors ever read their comment pages here (with only rare exceptions do I see them post a response), then I challenge Atcheson to provide a reference for such a claim. Here’s mine: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db297.htm which states:

The average number of births among women aged 18–44 living in rural areas (1.56) was higher than the average for women in urban areas (1.28).

Isn’t that obvious it would be the case - rural people in general are more conservative and religious and may like to think they live closer to the Earth but (on average) they give even less of a crap about it than urban people I’m guessing though in general way too few people make the connection between population and environmental problems. The death rate in rural areas might be a little different (I know the opioid crisis is a significant cause of death now but not enough to drive the death rate up very much). but I doubt it is significant to rural population rates of change. What is significant? People moving obviously. For many, either the rural life is not satisfying or more likely just not possible (not enough jobs).

@dpearl, if you have a minute, am I wrong on this?


You are wrong - but the CD article author’s statement is misleading. Both birth rates and death rates are higher in rural areas and death rates do indeed exceed birth rates. I believe the key reason for this is that the rural population is just older so a higher death rate is expected. This may seem counter-intuitive but keep in mind that migration of young people is generally away from rural areas while the migration of retirees is generally toward rural (scenic and cheaper) areas.
The main depopulation driver for rural areas is migration. The birth rate minus death rate measurement is misleading to look at when you have a situation where old people go there to die and otherwise high fecundity young people leave (along with their future children).


Do you have a source? The reason I pushed back without having a death rate source (I found the birth rate one easily, but not an overall rural and urban death rate) is that I’ve looked at TFR, birth rate, and death rate in the context of population growth for a while now and even though we have low TFR now, it was quite a bit higher pre 1970 (it was 3.2 in 1964). This typically goes with a pyramid population by age profile and bigger birth rates than death rates even with a TFR less than 2 until the dynamics settle out (all stuff you know I’m sure - just in case anyone else is reading this). I had not thought of the migration of old people into rural areas - that makes the death rate high but as you say doesn’t explain the population going down (people came in and died) - if that’s the reason for the higher death rate then as you say, it has to be younger migration that depopulates the area.

I do see Wikipedia has per State info (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_birth_and_death_rates) and 3 states do have death rate higher than birth rate (WV (the most - maybe I was too quick to dismiss the opioid magnitude), ME, and VT). So I guess I could believe it now, but I’d still like to see the source. Thanks for the info.


Yes - tracking things like TFR is only very relevant to depopulation in a closed population. If young people migrate to go off to college and then stay away and have their children elsewhere then the outward migration provides a double hit on population size.
While the census bureau is naturally the ones who produce the data, the USDA actually is often the group to summarize the data and produce the reports on the rural population including some demography related stuff since it is very relevant to the long term sustainability of farming. So if you don’t want to wade through the census bureau info for your reference - go to a USDA report like the one at

The USDA also produces reports on rural life relevant to this issue in the opposite direction like educational attainment (women who go to college get saddled with student debt and establish themselves in the workforce before having children contribute to population growth much less than women who don’t go to college and have children at an earlier age)

Anyways, now you’ve made me read the report this morning I referenced above and I see that things are changing a bit recently where very scenic rural areas are actually gaining in population because the influx of seniors is so great. Of course, that actually hurts the sustainability of farming so it’s not a trend I like at all. The report also indicates that the author of this CD article has overblown the idea that rural communities are becoming very diverse. Percentage-wise the changes in white rural population are going down a bit while the changes in minority groups are going up - but the baseline was so skewed that rural areas are still 78% of the population and racial/ethnic minorities are only 22% - so there’s really still not much diversity there at all.

I also just noticed that the cdc makes the country level data population data available for download (includes the urban/suburban/rural classification) if you want to look at the data yourself.
For example the death rate data is at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data_access/cmf.htm


Answer my question?


Sorry, I may have misinterpreted your answer.


Thanks for all that info. I skimmed the brochure form of the data at the USDA site which states:

Net migration increased from -0.25 percent in 2011-12 to essentially 0 in 2016-17, whereas population growth from natural change dropped from 0.12 to 0.08 percent.

So in addition to your observation that net migration out of rural areas has stabilized (-0.25 percent I assume means 0.25% of the population is lost each year to net migration out), doesn’t this say that I wasn’t wrong - rural death rates are lower than birth rates (0.08% lower)? After seeing the state data on Wikipedia, I expected I could be wrong (given those 3 states I mentioned which are pretty rural do have higher death rates).


Okay - I obviously greatly added to the confusion above by not pointing out the fact that the author’s statement is about “most non-metropolitan communities” and your statements have been about the total rural population. Yes - birth rates are higher for the total rural population - (in fact they have been that way for a long time but the amount they are higher by in total has been going down). So you have been talking about the numbers behind a graph like this one:

But for a majority of rural communities (actually just a bare majority) the birth rates have been lower than the death rates. Altogether there are currently 1976 of the 3143 counties in the U.S. classified as non-metropolitan and 1167 counties classified as metropolitan. The things that the author was talking about are in regard to what is happening in a majority of those counties. For example, on a county basis, 1333 of those 1976 counties (67.5%) lost population between 2010 and 2017. With respect to natural increase or decrease (births minus deaths) there was 997 counties (50.5%) that had more deaths than births - so a bare majority. This would be saying that there are slightly more orange and brown counties than beige counties in this map: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/charts/57702/natmap1017.png?v=4922.6

If you break it down further to look at the noncore counties (these are the truly rural counties that don’t even have micropolitan districts with any cities over 10,000 people) than that 50.5% goes up to about 60%

Sorry for mucking this up in my previous posts. There are lots of nuances to this stuff and I wasn’t paying lose enough attention.