Statistics can be pretty misleading. The following article says that Hilllsry won 53 to 41% among voters with incomes under 30k while Obama won 63 to 35%. So that's a smaller gap than the one you reported (maybe yours is correct, maybe mine, maybe neither). Not only that Clinton got fewer African-American votes--88 percent to 93 percent--than Obama. African-American voters tend to be poorer so lower numbers of those voters going to Clinton would skew the the number of white voters comprising Trump's 41% downward. Finally, exit polls themselves are subject to error. I don't think at this point that it is clear that lower-income (<30K)white people voted more for Trump than Romney.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.bbc.co.u ... ent=safari
https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbsnews. ... ent=safari

I also found this site interesting--it finds areas where there was income inequality to correlate with Republicans (which supports your theory)and fewer Hispanics as well (which complicates things) I am not sure how that Apple is sliced...

http://bruegel.org/2016/11/income-inequ ... rump-vote/

freeman3 wrote:Trump heard them--that's funny. I have dealt with lawyers like Trump. They can be difficult because there are no rules--whatever it takes to win. Even if they aren't that great of lawyers they can be tough because anything goes.Trump will say anything, do anything to win. It's the winning that matters. That trade stuff was just a way to win, I think. That stuff won't matter for him really. I mean, did he ever mention trade before? I guess we'll see.

Me too ... I had recently dealt with someone like this in business. They are very challenging and will lie to your face if it suits your agenda. They don't come across as super intelligent because that's not of concern to them. They care about winning. He reminded me of Trump.

The positive is that when you are President, "winning" means doing a good job, right? There's no higher position so you may as well do your best to go down in history as a great one.

Ray Jay wrote:

freeman3 wrote:Trump heard them--that's funny. I have dealt with lawyers like Trump. They can be difficult because there are no rules--whatever it takes to win. Even if they aren't that great of lawyers they can be tough because anything goes.Trump will say anything, do anything to win. It's the winning that matters. That trade stuff was just a way to win, I think. That stuff won't matter for him really. I mean, did he ever mention trade before? I guess we'll see.

Me too ... I had recently dealt with someone like this in business. They are very challenging and will lie to your face if it suits your agenda. They don't come across as super intelligent because that's not of concern to them. They care about winning. He reminded me of Trump.

The positive is that when you are President, "winning" means doing a good job, right? There's no higher position so you may as well do your best to go down in history as a great one.

In other words, they are like Diplomacy players! :)

That trade stuff was just a way to win, I think. That stuff won't matter for him really.

You may be very right, I can't argue that.
But to think or even imply Clinton wasn't doing the exact same thing is actually kind of funny!

Well, if he brings that ruthless, no-holds barred style to governance...it might be effective.

I am actually a little curious (not just dreading) as to what is going to happen. That would not be the case with really any other Republican candidate. If he does what he says he was going to do and is effective at getting it done with regard to economic policy--and defers on foreign policy to a capable Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense--a Trump presidency might not be that bad.

The best case scenario is that this finally breaks the logjam of bitter partisanship in Congress and forces everybody to actually start delivering results. Worst case scenario is that Trump spends two years arguing with everybody, most especially those on his own side, and then some kind of major storm breaks out in the world that he's woefully ill-equipped to deal with. The latter strikes me as being more likely, but we should at least give him the chance to fail before writing him off.

Well, Republicans refused to trade with Obama (or allow individual members to do so). If Republicans are willing to horse trade then things can get done. If it's "if you do things we want we will support it but we'll oppose everything else as a bloc" then gridlock will continue. If individual Republican members are allowed to prioritize what they do and don't want and agree to support things they don't want in return for something they want more then things can get done. Democrats are not going to oppose Trump as a bloc like the Republicans opposed Obama if he agrees to do some things they want done. I have no doubt about that. The question is whether Republicans are more flexible than they were with Obama.

You're probably right, but I wonder whether that might be old paradigm thinking. The reaction against Trump's election has been visceral. Will Democrats find it politically viable to be seen to compromise with him ?

Democrats are more pragmatic. If Trump says give me tax cuts and I'll give you an infrastructure bill to create a million jobs...he'll get Democratic support.

The only sacrosanct thing is Obamacare. They can reform it but outright appeal...political suicide if Drmocrats allow that to happen. There goes the African-American vote; they won't go Republican of course but it would have a negative effect on how they view the Democratic Party. So why would Democrats antagonize such a key part of their base? Actually, most Democrsts would be pissed if Democrats don't fight to the hilt on this issue.

Several things

Maybe, just maybe Trump will be good (yes, let';s at least give him a chance). As an outsider he could bring a new way of doing things to the office. His not really being a republican could work for some Democrats and more than a few Republicans? I also think that, despite his "tough guy" stance, he actually knows how to negotiate a deal and will (I hope) not be so caught up in the partisan all or nothing nonsense that permeates Washington (and Freeman pointed out how the Republicans were blocking most anything Obama wanted, a few years ago the Democrats were doing that same thing to Bush, let's not pretend this is one sided please)

a funny story, Freeman says he is curious how things will work out, my wife who is anything but "political" in the least is suddenly following the news, especially where Trump is concerned. She is really interested in how things are going to work out and she's really "getting it" all of a sudden!

...even if the majority of Americans want something new? Even if most Democrats at home want whatever this new plan turns out to be? If you insist they should fight doing away with Obamacare no matter what, then you are part of a BIG problem. If the Trump team and Republicans come up with nothing or they come up with a crappy idea, then fight by all means. But to say it simply does not matter, Obamacare is "sacrosanct" then that's just stupid talk. You are more than likely right, but let's see what comes to light. Ben Carson, while a goofy guy, is heading this, he's both brilliant (a brain surgeon) and he knows the medical system, maybe, just maybe something that actually works comes from all of this? Let's not dig in and fight something we don't even know about just yet, that is no answer and is embarrassing to even suggest.

Reform of Obamacare is possible, which I already said. Republicans have leverage to make it a more Republican-friendly plan. Reasonable compromise is possible. But if it's just a steamroller over Obamacare, we have no reason to give in.

freeman3 wrote:Reform of Obamacare is possible, which I already said. Republicans have leverage to make it a more Republican-friendly plan. Reasonable compromise is possible. But if it's just a steamroller over Obamacare, we have no reason to give in.

Well, Obamacare was steamrolled over the Republicans, after all. They might just want some revenge. There are only two real pluses with ACA: The prior conditions waiver and the removal of caps. The rest is a train wreck.

If they can do it without a single Democratic vote then why not do it? I think it's going to be a nightmare issue for them. Businesses are not going to like health coverage bring upset again, health insurance companies are not going to like having to insure people they don't want to insure (like pre-existing conditions) without health people being forced to buy the plan. You are going to have powerful interests opposed to getting rid of it. If they're smart they will keep it but make a deal with the Democrats to restructure it more to their liking. Trying to gut it and getting agreement on a plan that would enable health insurance companies to be able to survive complying with taking bad risks while not getting young, healthy people to make up for that is going to be extraordinarily difficult. The problem is you can't just throw out the bad and take the good--you have to throw out the whole thing. THAT would be very, very unpopular. And of course they can't get totally get rid of Obamacare.

I think I am going to enjoy seeing the Republicans tie themselves in knots over this. All that health insurance money, pharmaceutical money threatening to go over to Democrats; Republican governors who took Medicaid expansion not happy, businesses not happy at things thrown into uncertainly and upsetting what they are doing with health coverage again after finally adjusting to Obamacare. Go ahead...take the hot potato!