White voters without a college degree have favored Republicans for some time — they voted for Mitt Romney by 18 points in 2012 — but they love Donald Trump. In an average of six polls this month, he is beating Clinton by a margin of 58 to 30 among these voters. The massive swing of white working-class voters, who made up 44 percent of the electorate in 2012, could more than cancel out her strengths among minorities and the college-educated.

http://nypost.com/2016/07/30/why-white-trash-americans-are-flocking-to-d...

[Author J.D.] Vance paints a picture of a world exactly like the one Trump described in his acceptance speech 10 days ago. He grew up in Jackson, Ky., and nearby Middletown, Ohio, a once-prosperous industrial town where everyone seemed to work for the steel company Armco. Back in the 1960s, the company would actively recruit new workers from the hills of eastern Kentucky, taking care to preserve families by encouraging relatives to move in also. “For my grandparents,” Vance writes, “Armco was an economic savior — the engine that brought them from the hills of Kentucky to America’s middle class.” Vance’s Papaw would proudly stop by car dealerships to explain to J.D. that this or that car was built with Armco steel. He retired with a generous pension. After a 1989 merger with Kawasaki, the company became AK Steel. It still exists, but many factory jobs in Middletown disappeared.

.................................................................

And what changed from the 1960's to 1989? And which Presidential candidate is closer to 1960's and which one is closer to 1989?

Comments

Tom Dorricott's picture
Tom Dorricott 2 years 11 weeks ago
#1

Accurate analysis, but I wouldn't call anyone without a college education "trash". This shows Trump's support among voters without a degree is not preponderantly based on racism, xenophobia, or the desire to go back to a time when women were not in the workplace. It is a frustration with trade deals that hurt US manufacturing to help corporatists, relentless attacks on priveate sector unions, the devouring of the small business owner by Wal-Mart, Rite-Aid, and Home Depot, and the contractor -encouraged flooding of construction and landscaping jobs with illegal immigrants which depressed wages. Hillary's callous disregard of coal miner interests also shows how even elitist environmentalists have hurt blue collar jobs. My assumption is that a majority of those frozen out of the workplace without a college degree would have supported Bernie, out of economic concerns, rather than stay with Trump, because of racial or social concerns. Trump has these voters in great numbers because they were abandoned by both parties in the last three decades.

.ren's picture
.ren 2 years 11 weeks ago
#2

Cognitive Scientist George Lakoff offers an interesting perspective on this phenomenon:

Understanding Trump

In particular, this section caught my eye regarding this group:

Quote George Lakoff:

Political Correctness

There are at least tens of millions of conservatives in America who share strict father morality and its moral hierarchy. Many of them are poor or middle class and many are white men who see themselves as superior to immigrants, nonwhites, women, nonChristians, gays — and people who rely on public assistance. In other words, they are what liberals would call “bigots.” For many years, such bigotry has not been publicly acceptable, especially as more immigrants have arrived, as the country has become less white, as more women have become educated and moved into the workplace, and as gays have become more visible and gay marriage acceptable.

As liberal anti-bigotry organizations have loudly pointed out and made a public issue of the unAmerican nature of such bigotry, those conservatives have felt more and more oppressed by what they call “political correctness” — public pressure against their views and against what they see as “free speech.” This has become exaggerated since 911, when anti-Muslim feelings became strong. The election of President Barack Hussein Obama created outrage among those conservatives, and they refused to see him as a legitimate American (as in the birther movement), much less as a legitimate authority, especially as his liberal views contradicted almost everything else they believe as conservatives.

Donald Trump expresses out loud everything they feel — with force, aggression, anger, and no shame. All they have to do is support and vote for Trump and they don’t even have to express their ‘politically incorrect’ views, since he does it for them and his victories make those views respectable. He is their champion. He gives them a sense of self-respect, authority, and the possibility of power.

Whenever you hear the words “political correctness” remember this.

Legend 2 years 11 weeks ago
#3

I worked with a lot of American blue collar workers in my career and they have there own way of thinking. It amazed me how many were anti union. A lot will vote for Trump because of a preconceived hatred for a women POTUS, especially Hilary Clinton.

Eyeball Kid's picture
Eyeball Kid 2 years 11 weeks ago
#4

I believe that Trump should be tested to rule out a dual diagnosis: Narcissistic Personality Disorder (which has frequently been cited as a possible reason for his unusual presentation of himself) AND Early Stage Alzheimer's. I do not take the second possibility as hyperbolic ridicule. For those who have professional experience with Alzheimers patients, please view Trump's display of cognitive abnormalities within the context of this disease. The consistencies are not only amazing, but frightening.

Legend 2 years 11 weeks ago
#5
Quote Eyeball Kid:

I believe that Trump should be tested to rule out a dual diagnosis: Narcissistic Personality Disorder (which has frequently been cited as a possible reason for his unusual presentation of himself) AND Early Stage Alzheimer's. I do not take the second possibility as hyperbolic ridicule. For those who have professional experience with Alzheimers patients, please view Trump's display of cognitive abnormalities within the context of this disease. The consistencies are not only amazing, but frightening.

You have to look at how they live. Trump has not been in the public arena for most of his life. He does not go to malls, Home Depot, movie theatres etc. He lives a sheltered life of private jets, helicopters, limos, private country clubs, multible private estates etc. If he does travel it is in private planes and 5 star plus hotels. His friends are all in the 1% plus. He does not mingle with the common American. Hilary is close to the same. They do not worry about medical bills or heating bills. How can they even begin to relate with the average American. You worry about $100 in gas for the month, his jet uses that in a minute.

Upgrayedd's picture
Upgrayedd 2 years 11 weeks ago
#6
Quote Tom Dorricott:

...This shows Trump's support among voters without a degree... is a frustration with trade deals that hurt US manufacturing to help corporatists, relentless attacks on priveate sector unions, the devouring of the small business owner by Wal-Mart, Rite-Aid, and Home Depot, and the contractor -encouraged flooding of construction and landscaping jobs with illegal immigrants which depressed wages...

My assumption is that a majority of those frozen out of the workplace without a college degree would have supported Bernie, out of economic concerns...

Trump has these voters in great numbers because they were abandoned by both parties in the last three decades.

"The two biggest debates [about Donald Trump's proposed income tax policy] both revolve around tax liability for the highest-earning Americans. Advisers are discussing where to peg the top marginal income tax rate for individuals, which Trump's current proposal would reduce from nearly 40 percent to 25 percent. The new top rate will fall somewhere between 28 and 33 percent,"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/20/donald-trump-is-c...

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

hollywoodqw's picture
hollywoodqw 2 years 10 weeks ago
#7

So if you want to get Hillary elected spread this to all of your racist friends, Their eyes will be opened after reading this, they will know what candidate will be the most tuff on blacks and has the track record to back it!

hollywoodqw's picture
hollywoodqw 2 years 10 weeks ago
#8

They vote for trump because they low information voters, If they were voting for the candidate that is tuff on blacks Muslims and immigrant they want they would be voting clinton.

https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/

Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black VoteFrom the crime bill to welfare reform, policies Bill Clinton enacted—and Hillary Clinton supported—decimated black America.

What have the Clintons done to earn such devotion? Did they take extreme political risks to defend the rights of African Americans? Did they courageously stand up to right-wing demagoguery about black communities? Did they help usher in a new era of hope and prosperity for neighborhoods devastated by deindustrialization, globalization, and the disappearance of work?

No. Quite the opposite.

* * *

When Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992, urban black communities across America were suffering from economic collapse. Hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs had vanished as factories moved overseas in search of cheaper labor, a new plantation. Globalization and deindustrialization affected workers of all colors but hit African Americans particularly hard. Unemployment rates among young black men had quadrupled as the rate of industrial employment plummeted. Crime rates spiked in inner-city communities that had been dependent on factory jobs, while hopelessness, despair, and crack addiction swept neighborhoods that had once been solidly working-class. Millions of black folks—many of whom had fled Jim Crow segregation in the South with the hope of obtaining decent work in Northern factories—were suddenly trapped in racially segregated, jobless ghettos.

On the campaign trail, Bill Clinton made the economy his top priority and argued persuasively that conservatives were using race to divide the nation and divert attention from the failed economy. In practice, however, he capitulated entirely to the right-wing backlash against the civil-rights movement and embraced former president Ronald Reagan’s agenda on race, crime, welfare, and taxes—ultimately doing more harm to black communities than Reagan ever did.

We should have seen it coming. Back then, Clinton was the standard-bearer for the New Democrats, a group that firmly believed the only way to win back the millions of white voters in the South who had defected to the Republican Party was to adopt the right-wing narrative that black communities ought to be disciplined with harsh punishment rather than coddled with welfare. Reagan had won the presidency by dog-whistling to poor and working-class whites with coded racial appeals: railing against “welfare queens” and criminal “predators” and condemning “big government.” Clinton aimed to win them back, vowing that he would never permit any Republican to be perceived as tougher on crime than he.

Just weeks before the critical New Hampshire primary, Clinton proved his toughness by flying back to Arkansas to oversee the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, a mentally impaired black man who had so little conception of what was about to happen to him that he asked for the dessert from his last meal to be saved for him for later. After the execution, Clinton remarked, “I can be nicked a lot, but no one can say I’m soft on crime.”

Clinton mastered the art of sending mixed cultural messages, appealing to African Americans by belting out “Lift Every Voice and Sing” in black churches, while at the same time signaling to poor and working-class whites that he was willing to be tougher on black communities than Republicans had been.

Clinton was praised for his no-nonsense, pragmatic approach to racial politics. He won the election and appointed a racially diverse cabinet that “looked like America.” He won re-election four years later, and the American economy rebounded. Democrats cheered. The Democratic Party had been saved. The Clintons won. Guess who lost?

* * *

Bill Clinton presided over the largest increase in federal and state prison inmates of any president in American history. Clinton did not declare the War on Crime or the War on Drugs—those wars were declared before Reagan was elected and long before crack hit the streets—but he escalated it beyond what many conservatives had imagined possible. He supported the 100-to-1 sentencing disparity for crack versus powder cocaine, which produced staggering racial injustice in sentencing and boosted funding for drug-law enforcement.

Clinton championed the idea of a federal “three strikes” law in his 1994 State of the Union address and, months later, signed a $30 billion crime bill that created dozens of new federal capital crimes, mandated life sentences for some three-time offenders, and authorized more than $16 billion for state prison grants and the expansion of police forces. The legislation was hailed by mainstream-media outlets as a victory for the Democrats, who “were able to wrest the crime issue from the Republicans and make it their own.”

When Clinton left office in 2001, the United States had the highest rate of incarceration in the world. Human Rights Watch reported that in seven states, African Americans constituted 80 to 90 percent of all drug offenders sent to prison, even though they were no more likely than whites to use or sell illegal drugs. Prison admissions for drug offenses reached a level in 2000 for African Americans more than 26 times the level in 1983. All of the presidents since 1980 have contributed to mass incarceration, but as Equal Justice Initiative founder Bryan Stevenson recently observed, “President Clinton’s tenure was the worst.”

Some might argue that it’s unfair to judge Hillary Clinton for the policies her husband championed years ago. But Hillary wasn’t picking out china while she was first lady. She bravely broke the mold and redefined that job in ways no woman ever had before. She not only campaigned for Bill; she also wielded power and significant influence once he was elected, lobbying for legislation and other measures. That record, and her statements from that era, should be scrutinized. In her support for the 1994 crime bill, for example, she used racially coded rhetoric to cast black children as animals. “They are not just gangs of kids anymore,” she said. “They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘super-predators.’ No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel.”

Both Clintons now express regret over the crime bill, and Hillary says she supports criminal-justice reforms to undo some of the damage that was done by her husband’s administration. But on the campaign trail, she continues to invoke the economy and country that Bill Clinton left behind as a legacy she would continue. So what exactly did the Clinton economy look like for black Americans? Taking a hard look at this recent past is about more than just a choice between two candidates. It’s about whether the Democratic Party can finally reckon with what its policies have done to African-American communities, and whether it can redeem itself and rightly earn the loyalty of black voters.
.cta.primary.notmAOAInZ{
background: #cc0e0e !important;
color: #ffffff !important;
}
.cta.primary.notmAOAInZ a:hover
{
color: #cc0e0e !important;
background: #ffffff !important;
}

* * *

An oft-repeated myth about the Clinton administration is that although it was overly tough on crime back in the 1990s, at least its policies were good for the economy and for black unemployment rates. The truth is more troubling. As unemployment rates sank to historically low levels for white Americans in the 1990s, the jobless rate among black men in their 20s who didn’t have a college degree rose to its highest level ever. This increase in joblessness was propelled by the skyrocketing incarceration rate.

Why is this not common knowledge? Because government statistics like poverty and unemployment rates do not include incarcerated people. As Harvard sociologist Bruce Western explains: “Much of the optimism about declines in racial inequality and the power of the US model of economic growth is misplaced once we account for the invisible poor, behind the walls of America’s prisons and jails.” When Clinton left office in 2001, the true jobless rate for young, non-college-educated black men (including those behind bars) was 42 percent. This figure was never reported. Instead, the media claimed that unemployment rates for African Americans had fallen to record lows, neglecting to mention that this miracle was possible only because incarceration rates were now at record highs. Young black men weren’t looking for work at high rates during the Clinton era because they were now behind bars—out of sight, out of mind, and no longer counted in poverty and unemployment statistics.

To make matters worse, the federal safety net for poor families was torn to shreds by the Clinton administration in its effort to “end welfare as we know it.” In his 1996 State of the Union address, given during his re-election campaign, Clinton declared that “the era of big government is over” and immediately sought to prove it by dismantling the federal welfare system known as Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC). The welfare-reform legislation that he signed—which Hillary Clinton ardently supported then and characterized as a success as recently as 2008—replaced the federal safety net with a block grant to the states, imposed a five-year lifetime limit on welfare assistance, added work requirements, barred undocumented immigrants from licensed professions, and slashed overall public welfare funding by $54 billion (some was later restored).

Experts and pundits disagree about the true impact of welfare reform, but one thing seems clear: Extreme poverty doubled to 1.5 million in the decade and a half after the law was passed. What is extreme poverty? US households are considered to be in extreme poverty if they are surviving on cash incomes of no more than $2 per person per day in any given month. We tend to think of extreme poverty existing in Third World countries, but here in the United States, shocking numbers of people are struggling to survive on less money per month than many families spend in one evening dining out. Currently, the United States, the richest nation on the planet, has one of the highest child-poverty rates in the developed world.

Despite claims that radical changes in crime and welfare policy were driven by a desire to end big government and save taxpayer dollars, the reality is that the Clinton administration didn’t reduce the amount of money devoted to the management of the urban poor; it changed what the funds would be used for. Billions of dollars were slashed from public-housing and child-welfare budgets and transferred to the mass-incarceration machine. By 1996, the penal budget was twice the amount that had been allocated to food stamps. During Clinton’s tenure, funding for public housing was slashed by $17 billion (a reduction of 61 percent), while funding for corrections was boosted by $19 billion (an increase of 171 percent), according to sociologist Loïc Wacquant “effectively making the construction of prisons the nation’s main housing program for the urban poor.”

Bill Clinton championed discriminatory laws against formerly incarcerated people that have kept millions of Americans locked in a cycle of poverty and desperation. The Clinton administration eliminated Pell grants for prisoners seeking higher education to prepare for their release, supported laws denying federal financial aid to students with drug convictions, and signed legislation imposing a lifetime ban on welfare and food stamps for anyone convicted of a felony drug offense—an exceptionally harsh provision given the racially biased drug war that was raging in inner cities.

Perhaps most alarming, Clinton also made it easier for public-housing agencies to deny shelter to anyone with any sort of criminal history (even an arrest without conviction) and championed the “one strike and you’re out” initiative, which meant that families could be evicted from public housing because one member (or a guest) had committed even a minor offense. People released from prison with no money, no job, and nowhere to go could no longer return home to their loved ones living in federally assisted housing without placing the entire family at risk of eviction. Purging “the criminal element” from public housing played well on the evening news, but no provisions were made for people and families as they were forced out on the street. By the end of Clinton’s presidency, more than half of working-age African-American men in many large urban areas were saddled with criminal records and subject to legalized discrimination in employment, housing, access to education, and basic public benefits—relegated to a permanent second-class status eerily reminiscent of Jim Crow.

It is difficult to overstate the damage that’s been done. Generations have been lost to the prison system; countless families have been torn apart or rendered homeless; and a school-to-prison pipeline has been born that shuttles young people from their decrepit, underfunded schools to brand-new high-tech prisons.

* * *

It didn’t have to be like this. As a nation, we had a choice. Rather than spending billions of dollars constructing a vast new penal system, those billions could have been spent putting young people to work in inner-city communities and investing in their schools so they might have some hope of making the transition from an industrial to a service-based economy. Constructive interventions would have been good not only for African Americans trapped in ghettos, but for blue-collar workers of all colors. At the very least, Democrats could have fought to prevent the further destruction of black communities rather than ratcheting up the wars declared on them.

Of course, it can be said that it’s unfair to criticize the Clintons for punishing black people so harshly, given that many black people were on board with the “get tough” movement too. It is absolutely true that black communities back then were in a state of crisis, and that many black activists and politicians were desperate to get violent offenders off the streets. What is often missed, however, is that most of those black activists and politicians weren’t asking only for toughness. They were also demanding investment in their schools, better housing, jobs programs for young people, economic-stimulus packages, drug treatment on demand, and better access to healthcare. In the end, they wound up with police and prisons. To say that this was what black people wanted is misleading at best.

hollywoodqw's picture
hollywoodqw 2 years 10 weeks ago
#9

Anybody else notice Thom using black people as tools again today, He did a long segment on voter suppression in north Carolina to bsh republicans, But has not talked about any of the election fraud , voter suppression in the democratic primary.

He has never talked about Bill Clinton being sued 3 times and losing each case for violating the voting rights act as governor of Arkansas . I guess in thoms world racism is ok if your have a D behind your name.

Upgrayedd's picture
Upgrayedd 2 years 10 weeks ago
#10

Unless I'm missing something, it seems to me that hollywoodqw and Tom Dorricott both agree that these people (working class people in Kentucky) would be better served by Trump, but disagree on the reasons.

Tom Dorricott's picture
Tom Dorricott 2 years 10 weeks ago
#11

Upgrayedd: I didn't say I thought Trump would be better for working class people. I was trying to point out that they felt abandoned by both parties economically, and Trump (or Bernie) promised to shake things up. Trump is a wild card. I have no idea what he will do when he gets in office, nor, do I believe, does he. The only thiing I see him as being better for working class whites withiout the college education (or working class blacks w/o college) is his stance on illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants do significantly depress wages in construction and light manufacturing in areas where they are prevalent. Just trying to say that many "white trash" voters may flock to Trump as an economic "savior" (or charlatan), rather than for racist interests.No good choices in this election.

hollywoodqw's picture
hollywoodqw 2 years 10 weeks ago
#12

Quote Upgrayedd:

Unless I'm missing something, it seems to me that hollywoodqw and Tom Dorricott both agree that these people (working class people in Kentucky) would be better served by Trump, but disagree on the reasons.

No what i said if they are voting for trump on race, they are picking the wrong candidate.

How many blacks has trump imprisoned? The Clintons 2.5 million.

The body count in Libya, Honduras, Iraq, i think we know how wins that one.

and i am watching msnbc right now, but they are portraying bush as a upstanding guy for responding in a polite way to the mother who bush sent her son to his death along with 4000 thousand other soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and the death and destruction caused by isis.

But luckily for us Hillary learned her lesson on her vote for the Iraq war, so she bombed Libya causing another vacuum for isis.

How can we be so disgusted by trumps words, but the death ,imprisonment, rape and displacement of millions be seen as business as usual.

Hilliary clinton came, she saw, they died, they were imprisoned , they were push into extreme poverty , they were raped, they were forced from their homes ect

hollywoodqw's picture
hollywoodqw 2 years 10 weeks ago
#13

http://prntly.com/2016/07/30/july-poll-nehlen-is-beating-ryan-in-the-wisconsin-open-primary-in-2-weeks-video/

Businessman Paul Nehlen, who is challenging Rep. Paul Ryan in his Wisconsin GOP primary, nationalizes the race to throw out the Republican House Speaker, saying under a Trump administration: “Paul Ryan will be nothing but a problem: He will thwart President Trump at every opportunity.

Nehlen slams Ryan for his support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, amnesty for illegal immigrants and “jail-break” criminal justice reforms in this interview with ‘Fox Business Network’ host Lou Dobbs

Trump is changing infiltrating the party and possibly get a anti tpp republican in office and oust the libertarian Koch brother shill speaker of the house, out of congress.

This is big

Poll Conducted 7-20 7-29

523 Actual Voters in Wisconsin District 1

Will Vote Paul Ryan: 41%

Will Vote Paul Nehlen: 46%

Undecided: 13%

zapdam.'s picture
zapdam. 2 years 10 weeks ago
#14

Why White Trash Americans are Flocking To Donald Trump

Answer , most white trash white men want to have sex with a 13 year old girl , like Trump their hero has been accused of or have secret fantasies of having sex with their daughter ,like Trump has alluded to. Quite sick bunch they are.

Coalage2 2 years 10 weeks ago
#15

Despite the comments above, the answer to the question is quite simple. Trump is telling rural/industrial (mostly white) America that he will do something about the economy. It was the fact that Trump called out the "free" trade policies of the US that got him going to start with. Its not so much that they like Trump, but these voters believe Hillary is just part of the same problem that has been ongoing now for years....the decline of the middle class. And they also believe that she is proposing nothing new but a continuation of the same old policies.

In my area of the world, after graduating from high school, you had a choice. You could choose to go to college and pursue a degree in whatever. Or you could choose to enter the work force through several different industrial options. If you chose the latter, you could almost always count on being able to comfortably support yourself and a family. You could buy some property somewhere, a new car every so often, and have some assurance that the present, and the future, would be okay.

That is all gone now for most people....at least in my little area of the world. If you are even married now, both must work to just survive to the next pay check. Want to start a family? Okay but be prepared for financial turmoil. Need a new car? Better make that a much cheaper used model and just pray it doesn't break down. Vacation? Maybe next year if we're lucky.

These would be Trump voters don't care if the candidates present themselves as democrats or republicans. What they care about is that the candidates act like they are listening to their specific concerns about the economy. For many, in that respect, Hillary has just not stepped up to the plate. She seems aloof, distant and indifferent.

I expect HC to easily win this election. Not because she is a great candidate, but because she is running against DT.

kodowdus's picture
kodowdus 2 years 10 weeks ago
#16

My guess is that it has partly to do with the use of terms like "white trash", in addition to other, more systemic issues:
http://www.theestablishment.co/2016/05/24/i-know-why-poor-whites-chant-t...

Jimmy Dean's picture
Jimmy Dean 2 years 10 weeks ago
#17

Trump has a very diverse following. NeoNazis, KKKs, rednecks, honkys, hillbillies, white devils & ignorant crackers. Hope I didn't leave anyone out.

hollywoodqw's picture
hollywoodqw 2 years 10 weeks ago
#18

Clinton mastered the art of sending mixed cultural messages, appealing to African Americans by belting out “Lift Every Voice and Sing” in black churches, while at the same time signaling to poor and working-class whites that he was willing to be tougher on black communities than Republicans had been.

When Clinton left office in 2001, the United States had the highest rate of incarceration in the world. Human Rights Watch reported that in seven states, African Americans constituted 80 to 90 percent of all drug offenders sent to prison, even though they were no more likely than whites to use or sell illegal drugs. Prison admissions for drug offenses reached a level in 2000 for African Americans more than 26 times the level in 1983

To make matters worse, the federal safety net for poor families was torn to shreds by the Clinton administration in its effort to “end welfare as we know it.” In his 1996 State of the Union address,

Just weeks before the critical New Hampshire primary, Clinton proved his toughness by flying back to Arkansas to oversee the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, a mentally impaired black man who had so little conception of what was about to happen to him that he asked for the dessert from his last meal to be saved for him for later. After the execution, Clinton remarked, “I can be nicked a lot, but no one can say I’m soft on crime

By 1996, the penal budget was twice the amount that had been allocated to food stamps. During Clinton’s tenure, funding for public housing was slashed by $17 billion (a reduction of 61 percent), while funding for corrections was boosted by $19 billion (an increase of 171 percent), according to sociologist Loïc Wacquant “effectively making the construction of prisons the nation’s main housing program for the urban poor.”

Upgrayedd's picture
Upgrayedd 2 years 10 weeks ago
#19
Quote kodowdus:My guess is that it has partly to do with the use of terms like "white trash", in addition to other, more systemic issues: http://www.theestablishment.co/2016/05/24/i-know-why-poor-whites-chant-trump-trump-trump/

That is an interesting article in the link. It still really doesn't provide an answer. It does provide this:

A January 2016 survey by the Rand Corporation reported that Republican primary voters are 86.5% more likely to favor Donald Trump if they “somewhat agree” or “strongly agree” with the statement, “People like me don’t have any say about what the government does.”

I note the sample "adults registered as Republicans in January 2016."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/188096/democratic-republican-identification-n...

In 2015, for the fifth consecutive year, at least four in 10 U.S. adults identified as political independents. The 42% identifying as independents in 2015 was down slightly from the record 43% in 2014. This elevated percentage of political independents leaves Democratic (29%) and Republican (26%) identification at or near recent low points

Helen Willis 2 years 10 weeks ago
#20

Try reading, "White Trash, the 400 year untold history of class in America" by Nancy Isenberg.

Of course, it obvious that few working class people are going to listen to anything said by people who call them trash. Since most of America's poor are white and we probably need their support to get a progressive agenda passed, it might help if you would curb your urge to insult them. Please!

For the poorer white people reading this nonsense try to remember that the poem, "New Collossus" at the bottom of the Statue of Liberty suggests all nearly Americans were once "wretched refuse," and we've done alright for ourselves and our country, haven't we?

Helen Willis 2 years 10 weeks ago
#21

Jimmy Dean,

You are vile. If you used terms like these to describe any group of people other than poor white people, you would be condemned by all on this blog.

If you hate poor whites, who are the great majority of the poor in America, this much, why do you advocate progressive politics? Surely you would enjoy the continuing exploitation and abuse of this whole population? Really, why are you advocating for programs that will help all these "rednecks," "honkys," "hillbillies," "white devils," and "ignorant crackers"?

If you really do want to help progressive causes why don't you try shutting up until you figure out exactly what you are supposedly working for.

rs allen 2 years 10 weeks ago
#22

Uh huh whatever you say ms. sanctimonious prig. And just why would anyone advocate for all those 'redneck' 'honky's' hillbillies' 'white devils' and ignorant crackers'? Why? There's far fewer of them than any other put out in the cold groups. Could it be because they happen to be 'white' they deserve so much credit in your book? Why give them a second thought when all they've done is vote and act against their own best interests over the years and in fact have voted and acted against ther best interest BECAUSE of the 'others' as a whole and STILL DO! .............So NOW they need some benefit of doubt and understanding? Give them a break of some kind? When did they ever show that sort of empathy towards any others? Now I gotta feel sorry for their poor sorry asses?

Why tat?

Helen Willis 2 years 10 weeks ago
#23

Because the overwhelming majority of poor people in America are white. There was a report in the Huffington Post today that the poor in America have the life expectancy of people in a third world nation. I want to see this country do more for all of our poorer citizens.

What being a progressive in my book means is to try to give all people a chance to live a rewarding and decent life.

It will be far easier to get progressive programs up and running if we have the support of the people we are trying to help. Historically, the working class of all races especially in the south were in favor of economically progressive programs, such as the New Deal and the Great Society. We should be able to win some maybe even most of the working class white Americans back if we stick to issues and don't do a lot of bigoted name calling. This will advance the causes we claim to care about.

Lord, do I really have to explain why you shouldn't use rude racial slurs? That it's wrong to attack a whole group for the behavior of some. That skin color and economic circumstance don't reveal the content of a person character.

What is it you want?

For poor Americans of all races to get poorer and die even younger?

How is all your anger and hated going to do anything positive?

Helen Willis 2 years 10 weeks ago
#24

Really try reading "White Trash", you'll get introduced to the idea that America has always had a really negative attitude towards the poor of all races and one of the ways some of the rich elite, especially in the south, have kept all poor people down is by ginning up racial bigotry. And when the poor of all races have progressed is when all poor of races are given support like during Reconstruction and with the Great Society programs.

hollywoodqw's picture
hollywoodqw 2 years 10 weeks ago
#25

This is why trump being the republican nominee is good for the country, You can question whether if trump is qualified to be president, but for 40 plus years the republican party has been using race to advance the corporate agenda.

So the reason a majority of these useful bigoted idiot voters, think the reason their jobs are gone is because of affirmative action ,Mexicans and government taxes going to welfare and foodstamps.

With trump they still think government , mexicans and black are the reasons their jobs are gone, but now they are becoming aware of our trade policies and how they damaged the middle class and maybe in the future they will start looking for candidates that are on the side of fair trade deals that benefit middle class Americans, along with the progressive movement picking up steam on the other side start building a movement to get an American manufacturing base back in America.

The question is when the corporate shill Hillary Clinton gets into office and there is not a major election going on, no trump or bernie bringing up the issue , The media will definitely not be bringing up the issue and in 2018 and the republicans pickup more seats after the crash of 2017 and when she loses the 2020 election and we get a Paul Ryan type in office and Republicans controlling both houses what will happen then.

We really fucked up nominating Clinton and the price will be paid for years to come.

rs allen 2 years 10 weeks ago
#26

reply #23 & 24

The air must be thin up thar on that high horse. Yo brain ain'na working none to good.

Poor isn't what makes anyone become known as trash. For instance trump isn't poor but he sho nuf is trash...........and as he be white.........that makes him white trash.

A person or persons gets that particular distinction by the ideas they keep, not by how fat their wallet is or isn't.

Get it?

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ 2 years 10 weeks ago
#27

Great article. I would add that the Clinton economic success was really really the first in our bubble economy. Other than that, it was simply the economy recovering from a recession, which presidents have done since 1837. In any case HTC has no clue about any of this.

Helen Willis 2 years 10 weeks ago
#28

Rs allen, you really should read Isenberg's book.

As I think you already know, but don't want to admit "white trash," like "redneck," "hillbilly," and "trailer trash" is and has been for 200 years a bigoted slur for poor white people. My point still is, if we can bring some, not all, of the white working class men, a group that historically has been economically progressive back to the Democratic Party we can have a progressive majority for a couple of decades. This is a thing that would benefit all Americans, especially those who are economically struggling.

The use of unnecessary insulting slurs is not going to advance this goal. The times African-American and white poor people have somehow worked together have been times when all poor people have seen their lives improve.

When has increasing the hostility between these groups ever helped either group?

rs allen 2 years 9 weeks ago
#29

Yeh yeh, whatever missee pious.

Reread my #22 post.

Now reread my #26 post.

I don't need to wade through no southern apologist trying to rewrite what white trash has done to the minorities of this country in their direct actions and casted votes. And often doing so against even their own best interests.

Yes, white trash is a slur and intended to be so and speaks to their moral failings as human beings.

Helen Willis 2 years 9 weeks ago
#30

As I have explained on another blog "White Trash" is a serious history study.

Now, will you answer my question on how throwing around bigoted slurs helps anyone?

rs allen 2 years 9 weeks ago
#31

You have explained squat.

Wrap up trash in all the pretty wrapping paper topped with a big bow if you want.......but it's still trash.

Let them explain why they're so bigoted and racist because I sure as hell don't know and I sure as hell don't owe them or you shit. For 400 years my people have tried, died, many have even groveled and some have sold their souls to be accepted within your precious white world and to what avail? So that some sanctimonious prig like you should tell me I need to reach out to them? That I should show them some humanity that they never have nor will ever afford me in return?

What f'kin planet did you come from?

Helen Willis 2 years 9 weeks ago
#32

So what are you claiming:

That people born today are to be blamed for what happened 400 years ago?

If you would bother to read the book, you would discover that slavery was brought in to replace or support the highly abusive indenture system that justified its abusiveness because the upper crust English viewed the poor as waste that needed to be gotten rid of. That's part of the meaning of the named, "White Trash," because that exact slur is over 400 years old. Do you think this doesn't in anyway help explain how hideously brutally slavery was from its very beginnings in this country?

Are you claiming all poor whites have been or are now racist? Because history and logic would proof you wrong.

And finally, one more time what think you will achieve for anyone with all this hateful ranting?

rs allen 2 years 9 weeks ago
#33

What are you a 14 year old polly anna or simply a twit?

From Wiki:

White trash vis-a-vis cracker, hillbilly, Okie, and redneck[edit]

In common usage, "White trash" overlaps in meaning with "cracker" (regarding Georgia and Florida), "hillbilly" (regarding Appalachia), "Okie" (regarding Oklahoma origins), and "redneck".[7] The main difference is that "redneck," "cracker", "Okie", and "hillbilly" emphasize that a person is poor and uneducated and comes from the backwoods with little awareness of the modern world, while "White trash" emphasizes the person's moral failings.[8]

Helen Willis 2 years 9 weeks ago
#34

So they are all racist bigoted slurs? Why then are you using them?

Are you trying to claim that because "white trash" has somewhat of a moral implication it is somehow acceptable? Is it more acceptable to call someone's mom a tramp rather than a bitch because it has a moral Implication? Even if you say yes to this, would it then be right to call the mothers of a whole group, "tramps"? Let's say we are talking about someone is of extreme fundamental Christian belief and they say that in their opinion all mothers of illegitimate children are tramps. This would still be immoral and factually wrong because even in their world view the victims of rape would not be tramps. Do I really have to explain this to you?

What is it you are trying to say here?

And again I ask how does your using bigoted slurs help progressive causes?

rs allen 2 years 9 weeks ago
#35

Fool, I never anything about anyones mother.

Fool, I never said anything about ALL of anything or all of any race OR any economic level and never have.............have I.

bunnymunro's picture
bunnymunro 2 years 2 weeks ago
#36

But will they understand it?

And I do not mean for that to sound condescending, but the little trailer park up the street from me- has Trump signs all up & down the driveway.

Half of the people within the park are under 40 & on SSI, DSS & have multiple children.

While it is shocking to me that they wouldn't realize that it is the Democrats who allow them all this disbility, they STILL root for the guy they feel that can most RELATE TO...

Parts of the article were right in that he appeals to their bigotry.

I also think it is as simple as them seeing him as a rebel, a loud mouth who says what he feels whether it makes sense or not, they don't know the difference, so that solves that problem!

Then there are the Southerners who are middle class (my relatives) who hate everything PC and so they are for Trump (which is blowing my mind.)

I agree that we are now in a world that tip toes around the slightest phrase, but the reverse snobbery routine is just as full of shite.

Somehow they really think that Donald Trump would "like" or be near them in the real world.

Add comment

Login or register to post comments

The Thom Hartmann Program - Aug 30th 2018

It seems it's all racism, all the time w/the GOP...Neo-Nazi robocall hits Iowa on Molly Tibbett’s murder: “KILL THEM ALL. ” Richard Wolff drops by about the National Debt. Is it a disaster or an OK thing? Also - Trump & The National Enquirer - Is the Economy Here To Serve Us Or Are We Here to Serve the economy?