It's possible this is a consequence of overplaying identity politics used to try and counterbalance Trump's followers' politics. In other words the working class had their identity unintentially forged in the scrum of identity politics.
You cannot take a person's vote for you for granted. Last week a life long anticommunist in my country voted for the communist candidate - he just said "fuck it, I want to see the face of the ruling party hit the pavement".
And a lot of whites obviously got fed up with being used as an intellectual punching pag
He was 'charismatic' in kind of a perverse/uncliassical way ... enough to motivate enough people to tip the scales.
I think we will finally see the 'real Donald Trump' when he starts doing the actual work. I'm very interested, but honestly, I'm worried, I think the risk is high.
I get hammered for this, but we buy Apple products. We pay a premium. We are told Apple has to build overseas, in order to sell us products at their low prices. Then they have the gut wrenching corporate problem of too much cash?
I'm sorry--it always bothered me.
That said, I'll be shocked if Trump succeeds in bringing back manufacturing. Those senators are not going to raise Tarriffs, or do anything to upset their corporate lobbiests.
The DNC chose her over Sanders... would the results be different?
Yes. All the data at the time said:
* Hillary will beat Trump narrowly (she's losing as I write).
* Bernie would beat Trump in a landslide (I think Bernie would defeat Trump at all).
Socialism or barbarism.
Sanders had energetic youth support similar to Obama, but more so. I believe he would have won.
Going against political correctness by voicing controversial but popular views on immigration and Islam.
Populist economics in a recession after two terms of Obama.
And of course a yuuuge charisma.
But your points about populist economics are the bigger cause I believe. But then I'm a Bernie supporter who knew he could steal that issue from Trump. C'est la vie.
If one feels that the current economic outlook is not good for oneself, then I can absolutely see preferring a candidate who seems excited in proportion to the perceived challenge. And I would chalk the advantage there to Trump.
These scenes probably garnered even more support for Trump's rallies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMux_UHmpvc
https://sociological-eye.blogspot.com/2016/11/does-charisma-...
Overall, 6 of 29 modern elections were won by strongly charismatic leaders (Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, JFK); another 4 elections were won by well-liked but uncharismatic figures, Eisenhower and Reagan. About 80% of the time, an uncharismatic person wins the presidency.
Importantly Trump (likely) lost the popular vote by a large margin. But he focused on the few areas that actually count. Remember the extra 250 thousand Hillary voters in DC count for 3, the significantly smaller margin in Florida, and PA count for 49.
"Theory: In US presidential elections, the more charismatic candidate wins.
People who write about politics, whether on the left or the right, have a consistent bias: they take politics seriously. When one candidate beats another they look for political explanations. The country is shifting to the left, or the right. And that sort of shift can certainly be the result of a presidential election, which makes it easy to believe it was the cause.
But when I think about why I voted for Clinton over the first George Bush, it wasn't because I was shifting to the left. Clinton just seemed more dynamic. He seemed to want the job more. Bush seemed old and tired. I suspect it was the same for a lot of voters."
(I'm Canadian, and our immigration server is now down due to the load).
