Why working class Americans voted with their middle finger

NY Post ^ | 5/13/2017 | Kyle Smith

[RightGeek]

Clinton’s rhetoric about helping the poor also turned off the WWC: The have-a-littles disdain the have-nots. Working people in the middle are proud of their discipline and resent the spongers they perceive as being rewarded for having none. They don’t romanticize welfare recipients as being hapless victims of circumstance because they see them at the grocery store every week.

Even when they qualify for aid, they sometimes make a point of rejecting it: “I don’t want a government handout,” they say. “I can do this on my own.” Accepting welfare is seen as a character flaw and leads to a serious loss of social standing in the community, according to a study of rural voters in California. Without such standing, you don’t get considered when there’s a job opening.

Bill Clinton understood this kind of thinking, which is why he signed welfare reform in 1996, when he carried such states as West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri and Louisiana. No Democratic presidential candidate since has won any of those states, and they’re no longer even trying.

Bill famously advised his wife’s campaign to do more to reach out to the WWC, but in what will surely be recalled as one of the defining moments of hubris on Team Hillary, campaign manager Robby Mook replied, “the data run counter to your anecdotes.”

It’s just too perfect that Clinton lost the election in part because she relied on a gay, 36-year-old Ivy League data nerd rather than a two-time winner of a presidential election to show her the path to the White House. If she wants to learn some anecdotes about how to repel people you’re supposed to be wooing, this book is an excellent place to start.

[RightGeek]

Long article based on Joan C. Williams' new book “White Working Class: Overcoming Class Cluelessness in America.”

[vladimir998]

“[Clinton] she relied on a gay, 36-year-old Ivy League data nerd rather than a two-time winner of a presidential election to show her the path to the White House.”

How fitting.

[dp0622]

“the data run counter to your anecdotes.”

Apparently slick Willy’s anecdotes were worth more than this fruit’s data.

[Lurkinanloomin]

Every week I see EBT card carriers buying stuff I do not buy because it is not cost effective.

Why should I be happy about subsidizing irresponsibility?

[Dilbert San Diego]

This really sums things up pretty well.

Yes, she relied on a young guy, Ivy League liberal who thinks he’s smarter than the rest of us. A pajama boy type who doesn’t understand “middle America” and doesn’t even try. He’s too embedded in the liberal culture, of feeling that the alleged superiority of liberal views, will convince the allegedly less well informed and less well educated that Hillary should be the preferred candidate.

And the liberal disdain for Trump is such that, it was beyond comprehension to the Robby Mooks of the world, that Trump could ever gain significant support. Their views of those who would vote for Trump reflects their “achilles heel”; their complete lack of comprehension as to how much of the country views the candidates and issues of the day.

[Dilbert San Diego]

I hit send too soon.

Also wanted to say, that Hillary’s comments about the “basket of deplorables” sums up how these elitist liberals view the rest of us. We are deplorable and irredeemable if we don’t vote for Hillary, in their warped world view. Robby Mook thinks we are deplorable.

[DesertRhino]

“Robby Mook replied, “the data run counter to your anecdotes.” “

Say what you will about Bill Clinton, that was stupidest thing he could have said to him.

[tophat9000]

the thing is we are real “Progressive” is when we do work-and don’t take from the public hand out

If you can support your self..Provide your own housing buy your own food provide your own health care provide for your family privatelee

[Luircin]

I’ll give this to Bill Clinton. He may be a rapist and the scum of the earth, but he’s smarter and wiser than Hillary.

[DuncanWaring]

It’s in the same general vein as Pauline Kael’s alleged observation in 1972 of ‘I don’t know how Richard Nixon could have won. I don’t know anybody who voted for him.’

[tophat9000]

the thing is we are real “Progressive” when we do work-and don’t take from the public hand out

Progress tax is the idea that if you make more you pay more into the public pool.. but that alse mean if you CAN make more you should and take less or nothing from the public pool

If you can support your self..Provide your own housing buy your own food provide your own health care provide for your family privately...you should

then you are not taking from the public money that is is there to help true poor that can not Provide for themselves

if you take public Paid for services when you can pay for them yourself privately you are stealing from the poor

so when left Tries to get you to use public services Tell you about your entitlements what they’re really doing is trying to get you to take from the poor

Socialism is actually anti-progressive because it has healthy people constantly taking from the public pool In fact most leftist promote healthy people taking from the public pool

[OrangeHoof]

Mine was a very measured middle finger. Truly, we were on the cusp of a permanently-elected political class who broke laws relentlessly and dared America to catch them.

They had to be stopped in November or we’d be forced to political exile for the rest of our lives while a socialist government in tandem with a lying media prevented the public from ever learning the truth.

[Scrambler Bob]

Voting???

I am voting multiple times a day.

They do it. So can I.

[Scrambler Bob]

He may be a rapist and the scum of the earth, but he’s smarter and wiser than Hillary.
= = =

And he wasn’t getting it off of hellary.

[arthurus]

“Getting a swelled head” is seen as an unpardonable sin, as J.D. Vance also discussed in his memoir “Hillbilly Elegy.” For the class as a whole, this is a self-defeating characteristic: How are people supposed to better themselves if their peers ostracize them when they even try? “I feel like I have changed sides in some very important game,” one class migrant says in the book.

I haven't seen much of that among the WWCs. I hear it a lot among the BW(welfare)Cs, though. At the Waffle House you are much more apt to hear from or about the fellow who is the first one in his family to finish, or go to, college and he is celebrated, not scorned.

[arthurus]

The elitists’ consider the WWC so contemptible that they are unable to think that such people’s votes would even count.

[Reily]

Having grown up in the Appalachian environment, I would say the “Swelled Head” is true but only under certain conditions. Meaning you act that way then definitely!
If you don’t then your family will show and express pride in your accomplishments!

[arthurus]

Had the Left won this time around it would have been the final substantial election. Elections would not end but unpredictable elections would. Totalist regimes retain the format of elections but control the outcomes. Even the worst of the dictators who are not the Heir Apparent of a real King feel they must have something that looks like elections for the sake of legitimacy.

[arthurus]

He is sly. He is guileful. There is intelligence there, too.

[PGalt]

Condescending.