Home | About | Donate

Pundits and Pols Still Don't Get It: Trump Didn't Win in 2016 Democrats Lost


Pundits and Pols Still Don't Get It: Trump Didn't Win in 2016 Democrats Lost

John Atcheson

A recent study by PRRI and the Atlantic that seeks to explain the Trump voter is drawing a lot of attention from the press, political analysts, and the Democratic Party. PRRI’s thesis is that the white working class American (WWCA) Trump voter was motivated by fear of losing their preferred position in society – that is, whites were motivated less by economic hardship than by social upheavals.


With Vichy democrats running the party, who needs republicans?


I ceased placing any hope in the Democratic party when Clinton so callously displayed his underbelly saying “Its the economy stupid”.

What the Democratic party did to Sen. Sanders was only confirmation and that Wasserman-Shultz and her peers have thrown governance in the landfill rather than on the compost heap. Would they even see so simple a nuance as that? I doubt it.

Fight the good fight on the local level. It looks to me that this has to be reestablished from the ground up. The lessons learned along the way are more valuable than can be expressed. Maybe the entire construct (there have been too many breakdowns for the word ‘system’ to apply) is dead.

For anyone interested in exploring the Center for Dynamic Community Governance


Would someone who lives in D.C. print this article out on parchment and nail it to the door of the Democratic National Committee Headquarters?!? (not that it’d do any good, but it might get some publicity in the MSM…)


Nobody will answer the door at DNC headquarters.

Ever since the 1985 Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) formation they are all inside getting their corporate money fixes and don’t want to hear about no stinkin 12 step program to shake their corporate money addiction.


Hell we all lost. We all always lose because the duopoly is designed to assure that we lose. There is no real choice and the entire system is rigged a hundred different ways. No matter who wins you will lose. You will never vote your way out.


In recent history, at least 3 viable Democratic candidates had previously held office in now securely red states: a governor from Georgia, a governor from Arkansas, and a senator from Tennessee. All of a sudden, it’s pretty much unthinkable for these offices to be held by Democrats.

Although I agree with Atcheson that the bigot-driven vote is insufficient to explain the 2016 election or to instruct Democratic strategy in elections to come, I think he’s missing an inference to be drawn about American voters in general.

Regardless of party membership, Americans are more likely to cast a vote based on emotion than reason, as in “he hates the same people I hate,” and “I’m infatuated with celebrities.”

Many liberal voters are intrigued by ideas, policies and strategy. The number of people so intrigued is overstated simply by the fact that news and opinion shows are more likely to feature guests talking about policy and strategy than emotion (let’s face it, not many people are experts or pundits because of their emotional responses.) In general, however, people vote because a candidate stirs up fear, hatred, anger, and yes, occasionally “positive” emotions. Yes, people got excited about Obama and Bernie, but that excitement was a secondary response directed at the candidate, not at a fundamental emotion they were trying to stir up. And the only emotion Hillary stirred up was when people got excited about the possibility of the first female president.


2016 is most likely the last election I will vote in. Maybe local and state ones but at the national level the average hard working people have been abandoned by both parties and their embrace of neoliberal economic policies. The plutocrats have too much influence to affect any worthwhile change for regular folks. Even at the state level much money has been poured in to elect republicans to the state’s governance. Until the tax structures are reorganized the people will continue to lose. I don’t see this changing anytime soon. Sad.


More corroboration that the Democratic party is the fake opposition party.


We all lost.

Most of us voted for the two biggest Losers ever to run a campaign.

And in 2020, I’ll go out on a limb here and bet a majority will vote for the parties of the Duopoly, the most corrupt political system in the free world.


The answer is staring you in the face. The establishment Democratic Party is hide-bound, corrupt and unreformable. We can’t oust the “leadership”, they have so gamed the system that reformers are driven away, sometimes forcefully. Their billionaire backers have given them total control and they will fight tooth-and-nail to keep we progressives away. So, there is only one long-term solution, and that is to drive them out of business, end the Democratic Party, and send them the way of the Whigs. To be replaced by the ONLY party with ballot access that is run from the bottom-up by it’s members. And that would be the Green Party, with ballot access in about 22 states and DC - for now.

We are in trouble in many of those states in 2018. If we do not get enough votes in the mid-term elections we may permanently lose our ballot access because the duopoly has changed rules to make it nearly impossible for third parties to gain ballot access, and very easy to lose it. In Ohio, for instance, we need to get 3% of the statewide Gubernatorial vote in November, or we lose recognized party status and our candidates would have to run as “independents” in the future.

Those shills and trolls for the Democratic establishment who will respond to me will say the we only take votes away from Democrats. This article proves they are wrong. More people just don’t vote, because they don’t feel they have any real choices. Parties like the Greens give people more choices and reasons to come out and vote. We need more parties, not fewer, and real choices. Our candidates meet the requirements that progressives say they want in candidates. Please look at us closely, then come over and support us!


"They’ve got a set of Republican waiters on one side and a set of Democratic waiters on the other side, but no matter which set of waiters brings you the dish, the legislative grub is all prepared in the same Wall Street kitchen." - Huey Long, 1932


Actually PB the eligible voters that did not cast a vote for either of the nightmare candidates or third party, outnumbered people that did vote in 2016.

“Roughly 43 percent of eligible voters didn’t bother filling out a ballot this year - the people who could have voted but chose not to vastly outnumbered those who cast a vote for Clinton, Trump or a third-party candidate.”

“As a percentage of eligible voters, Clinton received 28.43% (65,845,063) of all votes compared to Trump’s 27.20% (62,980,160) and Did Not Vote’s 44.37% (102,731,399).- Neither Candidate even won a majority of votes cast, Clinton got 48.0% vs Trump’s 45.9%.”


Excuse the long cut and paste, but every sentence seemed so spot on. All the resources the wealthy and corporations have invested in think tanks and media ownership has paid handsomely. Coupled with centrist democrats clinging to identity politics while taking corporate money (thus hamstrung on economic inequality issues), and it’s no surprise republicans hold so much power.

Kinda startling - but weirdly promising re an alternative - that a person could win an election for the most powerful person on earth with only 27% of the eligible electorate. Lots of voters up for grabs.


According to the numbers you cited, 128,825,223 voted for either Clinton or Trump, and 102,731,399 didn’t vote (or at least didn’t vote for president.) I might have missed something from the article I didn’t read, but I have an old computer that tends to freeze up when I click on external links.

EDIT: Or the grammar is weird, and it’s not a comparison to combined Clinton and Trump voters, but two comparisons to each candidate’s voters.


That’s not going out on a limb. That’s the status quo.


Thanks for pointing that out Sam - that’s my dumb error/mis-statement - I got it wrong and Pony Boy right…my bad, I mistook what PB wrote. What I was trying to say was what the quotes actually said - that “did not vote” numbers outnumbered those that voted for either clinton or trump or third party…I think I got it this time…


Please Tank, let me go out on that limb.


Maybe the answer is “to serve up candidates who represent the people’s interest, not those of the plutocrats,”

Excellent article but I disagree on the above: I think the answer is for all the people to represent their own interests, not politicians for the plutocrats.

Direct Democracy


He doesn’t mention Sanders …
Is he lost completely??
√ CosmeticDemocracy, “Influencing Elections”