In modern times it all really started to get bad when Richard Nixon moved to counteract the power enjoyed by Democratic progressives like John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Robert Kennedy, who in large part, were the albinos responsible for the Civil Rights Laws enacted by the U.S. Congress. But these laws angered the degenerate Albinos of the Confederate South - who were also Democrats.
In American politics, southern strategy refers to methods the Republican Party used to gain political support in the South by appealing to the racism against African Americans harbored by many southern white voters. As the African American Civil Rights Movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened pre-existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South to the Republican Party that had traditionally supported the Democratic Party.
In 1980, Republican candidate Ronald Reagan made a much-noted appearance at the Neshoba County Fair. His speech there contained the phrase "I believe in states' rights" and was cited as evidence that the Republican Party was building upon the Southern strategy again. Reagan's campaigns used racially coded rhetoric, making attacks on the "welfare state" and leveraging resentment towards affirmative action. Dan Carter explains "Reagan showed that he could use coded language with the best of them, lambasting welfare queens, busing, and affirmative action as the need arose." During his 1976 and 1980 campaigns Reagan employed stereotypes of welfare recipients, often invoking the case of a "welfare queen" with a large house and a Cadillac using multiple names to collect over $150,000 in tax-free income. Aistrup described Reagan's campaign statements as "seemingly race neutral" but explained how whites interpret this in a racial manner, citing a DNC funded study conducted by CRG Communications. Though Reagan didn't overtly mention the race of the welfare recipient, the unstated impression in whites' minds were black people and Reagan's rhetoric resonated with Southern white perceptions of black people.
The top "Tax Producing States" shown in table below, contribute the most in tax revenues relative to the services they consume. They usually vote Democratic. The "Tax Dependent States" (Welfare States) listed below, consume the most in government services relative to the taxes they pay. And they usually vote Republican.
Trump’s campaign can best be understood not as an outlier but as the latest manifestation of the Southern Strategy, which the Republican Party has deployed for a half-century to shore up its support in the old Confederate states by appeals to racial resentment and white solidarity.
Trump enjoys a commanding lead in all the South Carolina polls. A recent one by Public Policy Polling was especially illuminating in showing, in the pollsters’ words, just how much “Trump’s support in South Carolina is built on a base of voters among whom religious and racial intolerance pervades.”
This intolerance is manifested not just in support for Trump’s go-to issues of restricting immigration from Mexico and by Muslims, but also in anti-black attitudes and nostalgia for the slave South. Thirty-eight percent of Trump supporters told PPP they wish the South had won the Civil War, while only 24 percent said they’re pleased that the North prevailed. Trump is the only candidate in South Carolina’s Republican field for whom that’s true.
The United States since its founding in 1776 has always been a land conquered by a dichotomy of Albinos. Half of them are intelligent enough to know that they (European and American Albinos) are a small minority of the world’s people, so they tend to take a Humanist "live and let live" approach to others. While the other half tend to be xenophobic, greedy, murderous, and with aggressive fear of others that routinely leads to atrocities of violence: (they think themselves so weak and vulnerable that they need not restrain themselves in their abuse of others to - in their opinion - defend themselves). "Defend themselves" seems to be a cover-all for unrestrained violence.
Consequently Albinos have murdered about 90 million Black and Mongol Americans since they discovered the hemisphere. Those that they did not kill, they sought to enslave. Albinos expelled/imported Black Europeans into slavery. They also imported Africans into slavery.
After their murderous deeds, the Albinos tried to pass-off their White and near-White Mulattoes as the original Native Americans. (All over the World, Albinos use their power over information to pass-off their White and near-White Mulattoes as the original native people: i. e. Egyptians, North Africans, Middle Easterners, Arabs, Persians, Hawaiians and other Polynesians etc.).
The Tuskegee Syphilis experiment:
The Tuskegee Syphilis experiment was an infamous clinical study conducted between 1932 and 1972 by the U.S. Public Health Service studying the natural progression of untreated syphilis in rural African-American men in Alabama under the guise of receiving free health care from the United States government.
The Public Health Service started working on this study in 1932, in collaboration with Tuskegee University, a historically black college in Alabama. Investigators enrolled in the study a total of 600 impoverished, African American sharecroppers from Macon County, Alabama. Of these men, 399 had previously contracted syphilis before the study began, and 201 did not have the disease. The men were given free medical care, meals, and free burial insurance for participating in the study. After funding for treatment was lost, the study was continued without informing the men they would never be treated. None of the men infected were ever told they had the disease, and none were treated with penicillin even after the antibiotic became proven for the treatment of syphilis. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the men were told they were being treated for "bad blood", a local term for various illnesses that include syphilis, anemia, and fatigue.
So how silly are some U.S. Blacks, the Albinos came to the Americas, killed off as many of the indigenous Blacks and Mongols (but mostly Blacks) as they could. Then imported African Slaves to replace the Blacks and Mongols that they had slaughtered. Then they put it in a neat package by telling the surviving Blacks that they were all descended from the African Slaves (perhaps 10% actually are). Having no way to keep their own history, it is understandable that they believed the Albinos on this account.
But U.S. Blacks know well the history and deeds of the sick half of the Albinos. Those people murdered and enslaved millions upon millions of Blacks and other non-Albinos. And when they could no longer do those foul things, they satisfied themselves with oppressing non-Albinos at every turn: denying them human rights, a job (income), legal justice, societal freedoms: and every now and then, they got a chance to murder by (hanging) a Black.
So now in modern times, the Albinos tell Blacks what their population is; and they believe it. That makes no sense, modern Blacks know the history of their Albino rulers, yet they believe Albinos when they tell Blacks what their population strength is - Knowing full well that in a democracy their population strength translates directly to political power. There can be only one explanation: Stockholm syndrome!
The Albinos are many things, but stupid is not one of them. Yet many Blacks believe them stupid enough to tell the people they oppress (Blacks) their true population strength, which in a Democracy means political power. Clearly those gullible Blacks suffer from some malady, it is called Stockholm syndrome: which is clinically described as a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy, and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with their captors. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the abuse endured by the victims, who essentially mistake periods where there is no abuse from their captors, for acts of kindness.
When Barack Obama was elected, Albinos took credit for it; they said it was Albinos who elected him. Meaning of course that the small Black vote was of little consequence. The Albinos said that Obama, in his first election, won 43% of the white vote, then he got 39% in 2012 but still won easily - how could that be?
Luckily the 2016 election of Donald Trump gives us a chance to statistically examine who actually voted for whom and in what numbers. But firstly, the 2016 election reaffirmed that the Albinos who murdered and enslaved Black and Mongol natives to take the Americas, still rule the Americas - when allowed. Albinos of every stripe voted for Donald Trump in maximum numbers (Republicans enjoyed their max. race-based turnout - including Hispanics)....
But which is still much lower than the (maximum Democratic vote:) 69+ million
BTW - The evil Albinos vented themselves and indicated their anger and frustration over having a Black president; by Albino police Officers gunning down unarmed Blacks in the streets.
So if we compare the numbers from Obama's victories in 2008 and 2012, where we had MAX. Black AND Albino turnout, to Hillary Clinton's Loss: which had an unenthusiastic Black turnout, as well as a disinterested non-Albino Hispanic vote: we can guesstimate the strength of the Black AND Albino vote. (Keep in mind that because of Trumps statements about Mexicans, there was a heightened Hispanic vote for Clinton in some states).
George H. W. Bush
Total U.S vote
|44,909,806 - 43.01%||39,104,550 - 37.45%||19,743,821 - 18.91%||
Total U.S vote
|47,400,125 - 49.24%||39,198,755 - 40.71%||8,085,402 - 8.40%||
George W. Bush
Total U.S vote
|50,456,002 - 47.87%||50,999,897 - 48.38%||
George W. Bush
Total U.S vote
|62,040,610 - 50.73%||59,028,444 - 48.27%||
Total U.S vote
PLEASE NOTE: The Albinos will never tell you this but:
Barack OBAMA RECEIVED MORE VOTES THAN ANY OTHER CANDIDATE IN HISTORY!
When Obama won in 2008, they told us that White women, Young Albinos, Hispanics, and Asians were responsible for Obama's victory: with Albino men and everyone else voting for Romney. They told us that in (2008) Obama got: 95% of the Black vote, Macain got 4%, Hispanics 66% - 31%, Albinos 43% - 55% Female 56%, 25% Evangelical voters.
Total U.S vote
PLEASE NOTE: The Albinos will never tell you this but:
Even after loosing 4 million votes:
Barack OBAMA STILL RECEIVED MORE VOTES THAN ANY OTHER CANDIDATE IN HISTORY!
Total U.S vote
Not yet known
See updated numbers (Dec. 2016) below:
COMPARISON OF 2012 and 2016 Elections
Obama + indicates where Obama got more votes than Clinton
Clinton + indicates where Clinton got more votes than Obama
Note: Hispanic/Latin means - Someone coming originally from an area where Spanish is spoken and especially from Mexico/Central & South America. These people are not monolithic: they include Blacks, Albinos, and Mulattoes. They also have the same racial issues as the whole of the Americas.
The Albinos tell us that Blacks voted 88% - 8% for Clinton, Hispanics voted 65% - 29% for Clinton, Asian 65% - 29% for Clinton.
They say that Blue collar Albinos abandoned the Democrats and voted for Trump, as did Suburban Albino women, because the Democrats failed them on Jobs and Social Issues.
If Albinos changed their vote - WHERE DID IT GO?
Obama angers midwest voters with guns and religion remark. By Ed Pilkington in New York Monday 14 April 2008
Barack Obama was forced onto the defensive at the weekend over unguarded comments he made about small-town voters across the midwest. Obama was caught in an uncharacteristic moment of loose language.
The comments were seized on by his rival for the Democratic party candidacy, Hillary Clinton, who saw in them the hope of reviving her flagging campaign by turning voters in the important Pennsylvania primary on April 22 against what she classed as Obama's revealed "elitism".
"I was taken aback by the demeaning remarks Senator Obama made about people in small-town America," she said on Saturday. "His remarks are elitist and out of touch." Clinton campaigners in North Carolina handed out stickers saying: "I'm not bitter."
Obama understood the so-called "Heart Land" Albino. He knew they would never vote for him - and they didn't. But Hillary Clinton thought that because she was also an Albino - and a woman, they would vote for her: but she was wrong. To them, she had been tainted by non-racism and progressive politics.
BUT THE BLACK VOTE "DID" CHANGE!
Clearly the only difference in voting patterns is the approx. 9 million Black voters for Obama, who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton.
So if about 9 million Black voters stayed home, and 88% of Black voters still voted for Hillary Clinton, then what is the total size of Black voters?
Well if we use the Albinos own percentages: if 9 million represents the 12% of Blacks who DIDN'T vote for Hillary Clinton, then the Black vote would be approx. 75 million. Which may or may not be a serious number, but it does prove that the Albinos numbers are pure bullshit!
Initial vote counts were preliminary and taken from Wikipedia Nov. 2016. As of Dec. 2, 2016 those totals were updated to reflect the following: Hillary Clinton received 65,127,332 people votes and 232 Electoral College Votes. Donald Trump received 62,621,132 people votes and 306 Electoral College Votes. Though the actual numbers changed, the relationships of the numbers did not significantly change.
Strangely - though the total Democratic vote count is the same as before: Donald Trump and the Republicans seem to have found about 2 million more voters that did NOT come from dissatisfied Democrats: (Democratic numbers remained the SAME!). Historically these voters did not exist before - so where did they come from? As of this date, there are many calls for a recount in some states; perhaps the results of these recounts will solve the mystery of the new Albino Republican voters.
The Electoral College
The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.
The Founders’ College
Hans von Spakovsky, noted in a paper on the Electoral College: “In creating the basic architecture of the American government, the Founders struggled to satisfy each state’s demand for greater representation while attempting to balance popular sovereignty against the risk posed to the minority from majoritarian rule.”
Some elements of the Electoral College, such as the indirect vote through intermediaries, were hotly debated at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. It was eventually justified in part as a stopgap to potentially reverse the vote if the people elected a criminal, traitor, or similar kind of heinous person. The Founders wanted to empower democratic elements in the American system, but they feared a kind of pure, unrestrained democracy that had brought down great republics of the past.
Alexander Hamilton defended the Electoral College in Federalist 68. He argued that it was important for the people as a whole to have a great deal of power in choosing their president, but it was also “desirable” that “the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”
Hamilton also wrote that this system of intermediaries would produce a greater amount of stability, and that an “ … intermediate body of electors will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of one who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes.”
As students of ancient history, the Founders feared the destructive passions of direct democracy, and as recent subjects of an overreaching monarch, they equally feared the rule of an elite unresponsive to the will of the people. The Electoral College was a compromise, neither fully democratic nor aristocratic.
The Constitution states:
“Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress.”
Today: the United States Electoral College is a mechanism established by Article Two of the United States Constitution in the indirect United States presidential election system to select the President of the United States and Vice President of the United States. Citizens of the United States vote in each state at a general election to choose a slate of "electors" pledged to vote for a party's candidate.
The Twelfth Amendment requires each elector to cast one vote for president and another vote for vice president. In each state and the District of Columbia, electors are chosen every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, and then meet to cast ballots on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. The candidates who receive an absolute majority of electoral votes among the states are elected President and Vice President of the United States when the Electoral College vote is certified by Congress in January.
There are currently a total of 538 electors, corresponding to the 435 Representatives, the 100 Senators, plus three electors for the District of Columbia as provided for in the Twenty-third Amendment. Each state chooses electors amounting to the combined total of its Senators and Representatives. The Constitution bars any federal official, elected or appointed, from being an elector. The Office of the Federal Register is charged with administering the Electoral College. In most elections, the Electoral College has elected the candidate who received the most popular votes nationwide, except in four elections, 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000.
Final Update Jan. 2017
After watching the Euronews, we were mildly surprised to find that the Europeans were also promoting the Albino lie that angry "BLUE COLLAR WORKERS" needing jobs elected Trump.
They use that lie to explain why his supporters don't seem to care about his obvious mental instability and clear incompetence.
First of all - for those simple-minded enough to believe Albinos:
The current jobless rate in the U.S. is 4.7% THE LOWEST IN DECADES!
As for it being that Trump was elected by laid-off Manufacturing workers:
Today - Manufacturing workers are less than 10% of the U.S. workforce.
There just isn't that many laid-off manufacturing workers to make much difference politically.
SO WHO DID ELECT TRUMP - AND WHY?
As we keep saying: the Albino RABBLE!.
WHY - Albino hatred and resentment of a Black ruler.
HERE ARE THE FACTS:
Just 6 states changing from Democratic to Republican won the election for Trump:
But is that the full story?
For you see, in 5 of those states, Trump got LESS votes than Obama did when he ran, and WON those states.
The formal admission of someone to office; the beginning or introduction of a system, policy, or period.
January 20, 2017: Donald Trump is inaugurated with a public approval rating of about 40%. He won the 2016 election with 46.1% of the vote. This means that even the hate-filled, Barack Obama (Black President) hating/resenting "Good people" (self-defined) of the U.S. heartland and constituents, are starting to have second thoughts: Perhaps coded promises to keep those non-Albinos in their place, is not sufficient reason or qualification to elect someone president of the United States after all.
Many seem particularly troubled that Obamacare might actually be repealed! Apparently they thought that Trump, as was so often the case, was simply lying to drum up support, but would never actually do it: knowing that so many of them depend on it (Obamacare) for their medical insurance.
Of course that's what happens when liars have intercourse: each has a hard time figuring out when the other is telling the truth, and when they are lying. America's "Good People" didn't really want Obamacare repealed, they just wanted to hate on Obama: but Trump didn't know that, so he gave the go-ahead to repeal Obamacare. Of course their effort will fail, simply because they lack the intelligence to develop a replacement.
Likewise - Trump knew that there is no way to force a sovereign country to pay for something (Mexico - the Wall), unless you go to war and defeat them militarily. But his supporters didn't, so imagine their surprise when he told them that "THEY" would have to pay for the Wall - if it's built at all.
But most troubling: Americas "Good people" (self-defined) of the U.S. heartland, don't really want another military intervention in the Middle East, they were just saying those things (lying) to hate on Obama: wonder if Donald Trump knows that?
(Population by Race)
PURE BULLSHIT TOO
Clearly the Albinos know the real numerical strength and power of Black America...
And they're trying to stop it.
After returning home from World War II, veteran Medgar Evers decided to vote in a Mississippi election. But when he and some other black ex-servicemen attempted to vote, a white mob stopped them. "All we wanted to be was ordinary citizens," Evers later related. "We fought during the war for America, Mississippi included. Now, after the Germans and Japanese hadn't killed us, it looked as though the white Mississippians would."
The most basic right of a citizen in a democracy is the right to vote. Without this right, people can be easily ignored and even abused by their government. This, in fact, is what happened to Black American citizens living in the South following Civil War Reconstruction. Despite the 14th and 15th amendments guaranteeing the civil rights of black Americans, their right to vote was systematically taken away by white supremacist state governments.
The election of Barack Obama began a new round of attempts to keep Blacks from voting. Black voter suppression laws were enacted in Florida, Illinois, Texas, Virginia, Alabama, Kansas, Tennessee, Arizona, Nebraska, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Iowa, South Dakota, among others - even states in the North.
Today Federal courts struck down restrictive voting laws in Kansas and Wisconsin. And in a particularly important decision, the fourth circuit court of appeals delivered a stinging rebuke to North Carolina’s egregious vote suppression law. As the court observed, North Carolina legislators didn’t even try to hide the core purpose of the law: to stop Black Americans from getting to the polls.
Pamela Ramsey Taylor the director of West Virginia nonprofit agency Clay County Development (provides aid to elderly and low-income) posted to her Facebook a comment targeting first lady Michelle Obama. It said “It will be refreshing to have a classy, beautiful, dignified first lady in the White House,” “I’m tired of seeing an ape in heels.” Clay city Mayor Beverly Whaling hit the comment section with: “Just made my day, Pam.”
August 1, 2016
Melania Trump (right) models for a January 1997 issue of France's Max Magazine.
Melania Trump in the January 1997 issue of Max Magazine.Photo: Alé de Basseville
Melania’s sexy photo spread appeared in the January 1996 issue of Max,
a French men’s magazine that went out of business in 2006.
Officials of the County responded to requests for comment thusly: “It wasn’t necessarily a joke, but it was stupid,” said Clay County Sheriff Garrett Samples, who The Washington Post said didn’t believe the comments were meant to be racist. “I’ve never heard either of them say anything racial before.” Town clerk Tina Goode agreed, blaming Hillary Clinton supporters for causing the whole incident to go viral. “It wasn’t right, what was posted. We’re not like that,” she said. “They are good women, and I don’t think they meant anything by it. We’re not a racist town.” But 16-year-old resident Katie Payne, who is Black, told The Washington Post that comments like the ones made by Taylor and Wheeling are made quite often in the town. However, “normally when people say things like that around here, it’s swept under the rug.”
Whaling issued a statement where she also stated that she is in no way racist.“My comment was not intended to be racist at all,” she wrote to The Washington Post. “I was referring to my day being made for change in the White House! I am truly sorry for any hard feeling this may have caused! Those who know me know that I’m not of any way racist! Again, I would like to apologize for this getting out of hand!” As for Taylor, she is deflecting: Taylor has said that sadly, she and her children have received death threats. She called the response to her comments a “hate crime against me” and said she was planning to sue those allegedly slandering and libeling her.
Ebonics (or Black English) is a derisive term derived from Ebony - which is a Black wood - and Phonics - which strives to enable beginning readers to decode new written words by sounding them out, or, in phonics terms, blending the sound-spelling patterns. Officially called "African American Vernacular English", it shares a large portion of its grammar and phonology with the rural dialects of the Southern United States. Several creolists, including William Stewart, John Dillard and John Rickford, argue that AAVE shares enough characteristics with African Creole languages spoken around the world that AAVE itself may be an English-based creole language separate from English; however, mainstream linguists maintain that there are no significant parallels, and that AAVE is, in fact, a demonstrable variety of the English language, having features that can be traced back mostly to the nonstandard British English of early settlers in the American South. As with all linguistic forms, its usage is influenced by education, age, status, and location. Because Northern Ghettos are to a large part, populated by Southern migrants, Ebonics is commonly spoken there. Michelle Obama was born to a middle-class family in Chicago, Illinois.
Please make note: Michelle Herren is a Blonde, Overweight,
Middle-aged, Unattractive, Albino Woman. It will all come together later in this page.
June Pridmore had been at the bank as the senior vice president of loan operations since 2008. "I voted [Trump] in," Pridmore wrote, in part, in a Facebook post. "I like him. He has a beautiful wife unlike the ugly and embarrassing woman (for lack of a better word), in the White House now. Ms. Trump's face would make Michele (sic) Obama (sic) a Sunday face."
"I'm certainly glad [Trump] he has a lot of money because she he (sic) won't be bought out like Barack (sic), socialist Muslim Obama (sic) or his wife or all those host of relatives they have in the Whitehouse (sic) for US to support," she continued before adding, "They have sponged the US of money flying to every single location in which they could vacation, taking the Grandmother with them. ....Oh yes, and let us NOT forget they flew the family dog on a SEPARATE plane. If any idiot out there thinks that is justified, you deserved him as president. "I prefer a man who can buy Michele (sic) and Barack and sell them several times over." After the comments sparked significant backlash, the bank launched an investigation.
The banks statement: "We appreciate the concerns shared about offensive social media comments that were made through an associate's personal Facebook account. We want you to know that we share those concerns. Those comments do not reflect our values as a company or the way we do business. The associate is no longer an employee of the company," said Bank spokesperson Jeremy King.
|Louise Henry Hoover (March 29, 1874 – January 7, 1944) was the wife of President of the United States Herbert Hoover and served as First Lady from 1929 to 1933.||Anna Eleanor Roosevelt was the longest-serving First Lady of the United States, having held the post from March 1933 to April 1945 during her husband President Franklin D. Roosevelt's four terms in office.|
|Elizabeth Virginia "Bess" Truman (née Wallace; February 13, 1885 – October 18, 1982) was the wife of U.S. President Harry S. Truman and First Lady of the United States from 1945 to 1953.||Mamie Geneva Doud Eisenhower (November 14, 1896 – November 1, 1979) was the wife of United States President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and First Lady of the United States from 1953 to 1961.||Jacqueline Lee "Jackie" Kennedy (née Bouvier, July 28, 1929 – May 19, 1994) was the wife of the 35th President of the United States, John F. Kennedy, and First Lady of the United States during his presidency from 1961 until his assassination in 1963.|
|Claudia Alta "Lady Bird" Johnson (née Taylor, December 22, 1912 – July 11, 2007) was First Lady of the United States (1963–69), as the wife of the 36th President of the United States, Lyndon B. Johnson.||Thelma Catherine "Pat" Nixon (née Ryan; March 16, 1912 – June 22, 1993) was the wife of Richard Nixon, 37th President of the United States, and First Lady of the United States from 1969 to 1974.||Elizabeth Ann "Betty" Ford (née Bloomer; April 8, 1918 – July 8, 2011) was First Lady of the United States from 1974 to 1977, as the wife of the 38th President of the United States, Gerald Ford.|
|Eleanor Rosalynn Carter (née Smith; born August 18, 1927) is the wife of the 39th President of the United States, Jimmy Carter, and in that capacity served as the First Lady of the United States from 1977 to 1981.||Nancy Davis Reagan (born Anne Frances Robbins; July 6, 1921 – March 6, 2016) was an American actress, and the wife of the 40th President of the United States, Ronald Reagan. She served as the First Lady of the United States from 1981 to 1989.||Barbara Bush (née Pierce; born June 8, 1925) is the wife of George H. W. Bush, the 41st President of the United States, and served as First Lady of the United States from 1989 to 1993.|
|Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton born October 26, 1947) is an American politician who was the 67th United States Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, U.S. Senator from New York from 2001 to 2009, and First Lady of the United States from 1993 to 2001. She was the Democratic Party's nominee for President of the United States in the 2016 election.||Laura Lane Welch Bush (born November 4, 1946) is the wife of the 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush, and was the First Lady from 2001 to 2009.|
|Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama (born January 17, 1964) is an American lawyer, writer, and First Lady of the United States. She is married to the 44th and current President of the United States, Barack Obama, and is the first African-American First Lady.||Melania Knauss Trump (born Melanija Knavs; April 26, 1970; anglicized to Melania Knauss) is a Slovene-born American former model who is married to American businessman and President-elect of the United States, Donald Trump.|
Lovely ladies all, but certainly none a paragon of beauty. As well they should not be, because the essence of leadership is competence and ability, not beauty. So why this deep visceral hatred reaction to the first Black First Lady? The Albinos have always proposed the Blonde haired, Blue eyed female as the epitome of beauty. But of course, those attributes are really the symptoms of Type II Albinism (OCA-2). So in a modern world where Albinos no longer control the conversation, and thus can no longer propose the false beauty of a genetically defective Albino: some Albino females (especially the Blonde ones) are likely to feel intimidated, angered, and feel repudiated, by a physically strong and attractive Black woman: who is also quite accomplished and popular.
The modern Albino Rabble - Like their ancestors before them, who happily offered themselves up for slaughter in the U.S. Civil War, with no hope of material gain. But rather, only for the solace of feeling that as marginalized and fodderized as they may be, they were still better than the Black Slave.
Now, after all they have sacrificed that would have been in furtherance of their own interests: first to support the Plantation Planter Class, and now Republican Race Politics: convinced always that it was all in the furtherance of Albino solidarity. Feeling betrayed, and having rebelled with the creation of the "Tea Party" they must now feel empowered that they were able to bring in someone with new promises to uplift them. Thus the apparent euphoria for the election of Donald Trump: but as we all know, suckers are suckers, and suckers never learn. The only question is how will they be used and abused by their new King. The Humanist can only hope that they will not be encouraged to digress to their natural reaction - violence.
First Lady Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama is a lawyer, writer, and the wife of the 44th and current President, Barack Obama.
A product of Chicago public schools, Michelle Robinson studied sociology and African-American studies at Princeton University. After graduating from Harvard Law School in 1988, she joined the Chicago law firm Sidley & Austin, where she later met Barack Obama, the man who would become the love of her life.
After a few years, Mrs. Obama decided her true calling was working with people to serve their communities and their neighbors.
She served as assistant commissioner of planning and development in Chicago's City Hall before becoming the founding executive director of the Chicago chapter of Public Allies, an AmeriCorps program that prepares youth for public service.
In 1996, Mrs. Obama joined the University of Chicago with a vision of bringing campus and community together. As Associate Dean of Student Services, she developed the university's first community service program, and under her leadership as Vice President of Community and External Affairs for the University of Chicago Medical Center, volunteerism skyrocketed.
Her 2012 book American Grown: The Story of the White House Kitchen Garden and Gardens Across America is based on her experiences with the garden and promotes healthy eating.
Melania Trump (born Melanija Knavs), also known as Melania Knauss) is a Slovene-American former model who is married to American businessman and President-elect of the United States, Donald Trump. Born in Slovenia, she became a permanent resident of the United States in 2001 and a citizen in 2006.
She is to assume the role of First Lady of the United States on January 20, 2017. She will be the second foreign-born First Lady of the United States, following Louisa Adams in 1825.
Melanija Knavs was born in Novo Mesto in southeastern Slovenia (then part of Yugoslavia) on April 26, 1970. She is the daughter of Amalija (née Ulčnik) and Viktor Knavs, who managed car and motorcycle dealerships for a state-owned vehicle manufacturer. Her father was from the nearby town of Radeče. Her mother came from the village of Raka, and was a patternmaker at the children's clothing manufacturer "Jutranjka" in Sevnica. Trump has a sister and an older half-brother, whom she reportedly has never met, from her father's previous relationship.
She grew up in a modest apartment in a housing block in Sevnica, in Slovenia's Lower Sava Valley. When she was a teenager, the family moved to a two-story house in Sevnica, and as a high school student, she lived in a high-rise apartment in Ljubljana.
Trump attended the Secondary School of Design and Photography in Ljubljana and studied at the University of Ljubljana for one year before dropping out. Trump speaks six languages fluently: Serbo-Croatian, English, French, Italian, German, and her native Slovene. Trump began modeling at age 16, when she posed for the Slovenian fashion photographer Stane Jerko. At 18, she signed with a modeling agency in Milan, Italy. She was named runner-up in the 1992 Jana Magazine "Look of the Year" contest, held in Ljubljana, which promised its top three contestants an international modeling contract.
A Republican candidate in Kentucky won a legislative seat, even though he had posted images of the Obama family as a band of monkeys.
In Sheridan Indiana, people made a parade float of President Obama in a toilet.
A mayor in Pennsylvania ran a picture of Michele Obama on a wagon of orangutans under the caption ‘Move-in day at the White House’.
A candidate in Tennessee posted a billboard with the caption “MAKE AMERICA WHITE AGAIN”.
A mayor in Washington State ran an image of Michelle Obama as a gorilla, saying she could be attractive only to another monkey like her husband.
After the 2008 election, some right-wing extremists circulated bumper stickers, quoting Psalm 109, that pray for God to kill President Obama, leaving his wife a widow and his children orphans.
Addison Graves "Joe" Wilson, Sr. congressman for South Carolina's 2nd congressional district, serving since 2001. He is a member of the Republican Party, a member of the House Republican Policy Committee and Assistant Republican Whip. In September 2009, Wilson received international attention when he interrupted U.S. President Barack Obama's "State of the Union" speech to a joint session of Congress by shouting "You lie".
Republican House Speaker John Boehner
Israel Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu
Republican House Speaker John Boehner, without telling the Obama White House, invited Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of congress to refute President Obama's policy on Iran. Not until two hours before it was announced publicly - did Boehner inform the White House. Boehner, Netanyahu, and the Republican congress conspired to carry out an unprecedented insult to a sitting U.S. President.
Hurricane Sandy (unofficially referred to as "Superstorm Sandy") was the deadliest and most destructive hurricane of the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season, and the second-costliest hurricane in United States history. Many East Coast States were hit, with the greatest damage in the state of New Jersey: which also has the distinction of being the State with the HIGHEST contribution to the FUNDING of the Unites States, relative to what it receives FROM the United States Government.
Sandy disaster relief
Almost three months after Hurricane Sandy ravaged the East Coast, the GOP-controlled House approved a bill that provides $50.7 billion in disaster relief for the storm's victims (the most damage was in New Jersey). While passage of the bill is being hailed as a bipartisan success by some (the vote was 241-180), a closer look at how the parties voted by state lines indicates otherwise. GOPers overwhelmingly voted against Funding - unless, of course, their state was hard hit. In 22 states, every last Republican representative voted against HR 152 or abstained on the bill.
When it was the Senates turn: the Democratic Senate passed the long-delayed $50.5 billion Hurricane Sandy relief package, But 36 Republicans voted against the bill. At least 31 came from Republicans who had previously supported emergency aid efforts following disasters in their own states.
Sandy flood insurance claims
Congress finally approved a $9.7 billion package to pay flood insurance claims from Hurricane Sandy. The measure was supposed to come to a vote earlier, but was tabled by House Speaker John Boehner. The measure passed unanimously through the Senate, but 67 members of the House of Representatives voted "no" to assisting people who were left, at best, powerless or homeless by a hurricane in November. All 67 were Republicans:
A middle school science teacher in Baltimore was fired this week after a video surfaced showing her berating students with insults and racial slurs.
In the video, which has been viewed more than 2 million times since it was posted by a parent on Facebook Wednesday; the teacher is seen pushing a Black male student who was wearing his HOOD INSIDE THE CLASSROOM out of her classroom, before proceeding to hurl insults at the rest of the class.
“You’re idiots!” the teacher, who is white, is heard shouting at the room full of mostly black middle schoolers at Harlem Park Elementary/Middle School in West Baltimore. “You have the chance to get an education, but you want to be a Punk-ass Nigger who’s gonna get shot.”
By Thursday, officials with the Baltimore City Public School district confirmed that “a middle school science teacher at Harlem Park Elementary/Middle School engaged in verbally abusive behavior and made racially charged comments directed at students,” and that “the teacher involved in the incident is no longer employed by City Schools.” The school district’s statement went on to state that “at Baltimore City Public Schools, we are committed to creating positive and equitable learning environments in school communities where all members are welcome, supported, and valued. No form of discriminatory behavior of any kind is or will be tolerated.”
That poor teacher doesn't understand that many Negroes, of all ages, are so damaged that the wearing of a hood in a classroom makes perfect sense to them. As does not making any attempt to get an education, after all, what use is that? So all that can be done with them, is what everybody else does, let them do what they want to do, and concentrate on the students that can be helped. Her caring just cost her a job, and possibly a career - that's too bad.
Clinton Honored As 'First Black President' at Black Caucus Dinner
By Marc Morano | July 7, 2008 | 8:19 PM EDT
(CNSNews.com) - Former President Bill Clinton was honored as the nation's first black president Saturday at the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) Annual Awards Dinner on in Washington, DC. The chair of the all-Democratic caucus, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Tex.), told the crowd that Clinton "took so many initiatives he made us think for a while we had elected the first black president."
THIS is why Clinton was called the "First Black President". Before the 1992 election,
Vernon Jordan and many other Black leaders came to Clinton with a deal: Promise to treat Black people fairly, and we will turn out the Black vote for you".
Bill Clinton got 83% of the Black vote, Bush got 10%.
When President Clinton took office in 1993, he appointed five African Americans to his cabinet. He appointed: Mike Espy as Secretary of Agriculture; Ron Brown as Secretary of Commerce; Hazel O’Leary as Secretary of Energy; Jesse Brown as Secretary of Veteran Affairs; and Lee Brown as his Drug Czar. Though the office of the Drug Czar was a cabinet level position in 1993 it is no longer. The five Clinton appointments in 1993 represented a first in U.S. history and the largest number of Blacks in high ranking positions ever up to that time. Never before had an African American held any of the four positions previously at Commerce, Agriculture, Energy and Veterans Affairs.
Over eight years, Clinton would appoint four more African Americans to his cabinet. He appointed: Alexis Herman as Secretary of Labor; Rod Slater as his Secretary of Transportation; and Togo West as Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Clinton also appointed Franklin Raines as his director of Office of Management and Budget. Clinton also appointed Eric Holder as Deputy Attorney General. In total, President Clinton appointed 9 African Americans to the top positions in his Administration before leaving office. PLUS MANY, MANY, MORE BLACKS JUST BELOW, IN THE DEPUTY AND ASSOCIATE POSITIONS.
And for 8 years the Albino Rabble seethed and hated, and threw every insult at the White traitor called the first Black President - but they were powerless to stop him.
But this was not a simple hate, this hatred was deep and abiding, because it touched on the very essence of the Rabble Albino. Today’s Rabble are basically the same people who started the U.S. Civil war over a hundred and fifty years ago. Today their support of the Super Rich, against their own self-interest, is motivated by the same need for "Self-Actualization" in a rigged system. That was their whole point in supporting the Planter Class who had an ECONOMIC interest in Slavery. The Albino Rabble had no Slaves, as a matter of fact; many of them were worse off than Slaves.
Quote from Realhistoryww Black Britain pages:
Thus the antebellum South was really a place of delusion and delusionary dreams. The wealthy Planter thought of himself as a noble aristocrat: yet he was the most degenerate of men, one who made his living off of the deaths and misery of fellow human beings. His supporter and enabler, the common White Redneck: was in fact used and abused by the planter class. The planter had slaves to do every task, and supply every need, thus there was never any opportunity for the Redneck to learn a skill or get a job. But interestingly, the Redneck did not respond to this situation with anger toward the Planter class. The reality of Black slaves being better educated and skilled than himself, only served to drive the Redneck further into racial delusion. The Redneck could see Black slaves working the fields and surviving, like his White skin would never allow him to do: designing and building fine buildings and Bridges, like he lacked the skills to do: they were also doing the common skilled work, such as Carpentry, Blacksmith and such. But instead of blaming the Planter Class for his lack of opportunity, the Redneck followed what he was taught by the Planter Class: that is, to satisfy himself with the sure knowledge, that because he was White, he was better than the Black slave.
Especially Galling to the Rabble Albinos, was the fact that many Blacks however, DID own Slaves! Often in greater proportion to their population than Albinos.
According to Robert M. Grooms:
Large numbers of free Blacks owned Black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for 1860, (the last year before the Civil War). [Note: the Census was completed in 1860, but because of the start of the U.S. Civil War, tabulation was not done until the Wars end in May of 1865. Further recapitulations were done well into the 20th century].
There were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Only eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states. The census also showed that of these, there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves. Even if all slaveholder's had been white (which they were not): that would amount to only 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).
In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Blacks is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that Black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period. Blacks who owned slaves include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a quarter of the Black slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight of them owning 30 or more.
Of those Blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were NOT slaves. Of this number: 10,689 lived in New Orleans. Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Blacks owned slaves, or 28 percent of the population of free Blacks in that city.
ACTUAL 1860 CENSUS DATA:
Even today - the Albino Rabbles hopeless dreams of "Self-Actualization" causes them to engage in "Counter-Productive" and Self-destructive behaviors. In modern Times - all of their hopes and dreams of Albino superiority was wrapped up in their unshakable belief that a Black Man could never be President of the United States. Then lo and behold, in 2008 it happened, a Black Man won election to the presidency of the United States.
And for 8 years the Albino Rabble seethed and hated, and threw every insult at the Black President - but they were powerless to stop him.
Then the day came when he could not run for re-election. The Albinos were giddy with delight; they immediately showed favor for the one who was the most versifierous in criticizing and lying about the Black President. Not surprisingly - he was one of unquestioned Albinohood, devoid of any color except RED.
And as should be expected of this type of Albino, he is a pathological liar with delusional tendencies. The Albino Rabble secured him the Presidency (by uncertain means), and he is currently being investigated by the FBI for colluding with a HOSTILE FOREIGN POWER (Russia) to corrupt U.S. elections!
And when his Albino Rabble Supporters heard this, they CHEERED louder, and promised undying love:
FOR A MAN ACCUSED OF BEING A TRAITOR TO THEIR OWN COUNTRY!!!!
But this type of treacherous behavior is not new to these people:
Robert Edward Lee (1807 – 1870) was an American general known for commanding the Confederate Army in the American Civil War. He was the son of Revolutionary War officer Henry "Light Horse Harry" Lee III, Lee was a top graduate of the United States Military Academy and an exceptional officer and military engineer in the United States Army for 32 years. During this time, he served throughout the United States, distinguished himself during the Mexican–American War, and served as Superintendent of the United States Military Academy. When Virginia declared its secession from the Union in April 1861, Lee chose to follow his home state rather than his country.
Trump: Obama Is “Incompetent”, “Truly Doesn’t Know What He’s Doing” - April 5, 2016
Trump: 'We are led by very, very stupid people'. - August 4, 2016
Trump Tells Bob Woodward US Financial Collapse Is Coming - Saturday, 02 Apr 2016
Donald Trump predicted a "very massive recession" soon in the United States.
Donald Trump on Budget & Economy
We're dying at 1% GDP growth; we don't make things anymore. (Oct 2016)
U.S. 1% growth is almost no growth, and due to high taxes. (Oct 2016)
Our jobs are fleeing to Mexico; China uses us as piggy bank. (Sep 2016)
Worst recovery since Great Depression; we're in a bubble. (Sep 2016)
By Sam Ro,Yahoo Finance 2 Dec. 2016
In a stunning development, the Bureau of Labor Statistics just revealed that the US unemployment rate unexpectedly dropped to 4.6% in November. This is the lowest level since August 2007. Economists were expecting the rate to be unchanged from October at 4.9%. During the month, US companies added 178,000 non-farm payrolls, which was a tad lighter than the 180,000 forecast by economists. Growth was driven by private payrolls, which increased by 156,000.
Manufacturing continues to be a weak spot for jobs in the US. During the month, manufacturing payrolls fell by 4,000.
Manufacturing jobs will be closely watched in the coming months and years as President-elect Donald Trump has promised his constituents that he would create jobs in this sector. This week, he made headlines by convincing Carrier, a manufacturer of air conditioners, to keep jobs in the US.
Other employment data continue to reflect a healthy economy with lots of job growth. On Wednesday, ADP’s employment report showed that the US economy created around 216,000 jobs in November. Monthly surveys from the Richmond Fed, Dallas Fed, and NY Fed all signaled on going job growth. It seems Trump will be inheriting an economy that’s in great shape.
We’ve all heard the seemingly endless stream of Republican lies and the fear-mongering they’ve tried to use against President Obama. Since his election in 2008, I’ve been astonished by some of the incredibly ridiculous things many conservatives actually believe. I like to ask conservatives I encounter to name five facts about President Obama. Some of the nonsense I’ve heard these folks respond with has been nothing short of pure insanity. A person really has to willfully want to dislike someone to actually believe many of the things these folks have told me. I can’t help but wonder: If the truth about President Obama is so bad, why do Republicans lie about him so often?
Clearly this is a rhetorical question since I know exactly why Republicans lie – fear is one of the best ways to convince people to act against their own self-interests. And while I disagree with Republicans on many things, I’ll be the first to admit that they’re masters at fear-mongering and preying on the paranoia and worries of their constituents. But the truth is, all the lying Republicans have done over the years only really serves to prove one thing: President Obama has been a damn successful president.
Here we sit in the midst of the greatest streak of private sector job growth in United States history (for over 14 million jobs), but to listen to Republicans talk, our economy is in shambles. Even with the unemployment hovering around or below 5% (lower than at any point during Reagan’s administration) Republicans will simply say it’s because the economy is so bad that people have stopped looking for work. They often like to point to a low labor participation rate, while failing to mention that a large reason for that is not because of the economy, but because the “Baby Boomer” generation is retiring.
They claim President Obama has been weak on national security; meanwhile, because of his policy changes following the disastrous Bush administration, we were finally able to find and kill Osama bin Ladin. Could you imagine the over-the-top celebrations we would have seen from Republicans had a conservative president ordered the successful killing of the mastermind behind the 9/11 attack? Then there’s ISIS, a group of terrorists that only exist because of Bush’s incompetence, that Republicans now insist is “Obama’s fault.” The truth of the matter is, when Bush removed Saddam Hussein from power, it triggered a ripple effect that led to the destabilization of the entire region. Then when Bush, not Obama, signed the SOFA agreement in 2008 setting the date for the removal of all U.S. troops from Iraq (a move Dick Cheney said was a sign of the “success” of the Iraq War), that’s exactly what ISIS wanted to happen. But to hear most conservatives talk, they seem to think it was President Obama who ordered all troops to be removed from Iraq.
Then again, why would conservatives know the truth about any of that – the right-wing media never tells them the truth about any of it. But even going beyond basic facts, there are the ridiculous conspiracies they’ve perpetuated over the years – none of which have been true: There’s been no gun confiscation. The Affordable Care Act doesn’t have “death panels.” Obama’s birth certificate is real. He hasn’t used FEMA to round up Americans into concentration camps. He’s not a Muslim. He’s not planning to run for a third term. He never declared himself “king.” He never attended Harvard of Columbia under the name Barry Soetoro. He never “ordered” his college transcripts sealed (they’re legally required to be sealed by all schools). The list goes on and on.
I’ve probably forgotten more absurd conservative conspiracies about President Obama than I can remember. And none of them – not a single one – were remotely true. Sadly, there are still millions of conservatives who believe this idiocy. What all of this really boils down to is Republicans know how successful President Obama has been. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be any reason to make up all the lies and conspiracies that they have. But since this president has been successful, the only choice Republicans had was to make conservatives so irrationally afraid of him that they would believe whatever drivel they can come up with. Which is exactly what they’ve done. As I said earlier, if the truth about this president is so terrible, why have Republicans spent the last 7+ years lying about him relentlessly?
We have often been amazed at how delusionally and steadfastly, intelligent Humanist Albinos, refuse to see the degeneracy in their obviously racist brethren. This even after they had to fight the very bloody American Civil War against these very same type people.
Filmmaker Michael Moore pushed back today against the notion that Americans who voted for Donald Trump did so based on racism. Moore, who warned fellow liberals that Trump was going to win the election, said Trump voters were motivated by economic pain and lost jobs more than anything else. "You have to accept that millions of people who voted for Barack Obama - some of them once, some of them twice - changed their minds this time. They're not racists. They twice voted for a man whose middle name is Hussein. That's the America we live in," said Moore, explaining that younger white voters turned out in record numbers for Barack Obama. Clinton got nearly 5 million fewer votes overall than Obama:
("Public Policy Polling" is a commercial polling company).
Raleigh, N.C. – PPP's newest national poll find that although Donald Trump is a little bit more popular than he was during the campaign, a majority of Americans still have a negative opinion of him.
1) 43% of voters view Trump favorably to 51% who have an unfavorable view of him.
Trump's popularity continues to pale in comparison to Barack Obama's. Obama ends his final year in office with a 50/45 approval spread. When it comes to the question of who voters trust more to pick the new Supreme Court justice, Obama beats out Trump 52-45.
“Donald Trump might have won the election but that hasn’t changed the basic parameters of voters’ feelings toward him,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “He’s unpopular and voters have more faith in Barack Obama to make major decisions facing the nation.”
Voters don't think that Trump's Electoral College victory while losing the popular vote is really fair: 50% think the candidate who receives the most votes nationally in the election should become President, to only 37% who disagree with that concept.
2) 60% of Trump voters think that Hillary Clinton received millions of illegal votes to only 18% who disagree with that concept and 22% who aren't sure either way.
3) 40% of Trump voters insist that he won the national popular vote to only 49% who grant that Clinton won it and 11% who aren't sure.
4) Only 53% of Trump voters think that California's votes should be allowed to count in the national popular vote. 29% don't think they should be allowed to count, and another 18% are unsure.
5) 73% of Trump voters think that George Soros is paying protesters against Trump to only 6% who think that's not true, and 21% who aren't sure one way or the other.
6) 14% of Trump supporters think Hillary Clinton is connected to a child sex ring run out of a Washington DC pizzeria. Another 32% aren't sure one way or another, much as the North Carolinian who went to Washington to check it out last weekend said was the case for him. Only 54% of Trump voters expressly say they don't think #Pizzagate is real.
7) 67% of Trump voters say that unemployment increased during the Obama administration, to only 20% who say it decreased.
8) Only 41% of Trump voters say that the stock market went up during the Obama administration. 39% say it went down, and another 19% say they're not sure.
Trump's certainly been effective at turning his voters against the various entities he's feuding with though. Among Trump voters the Times has a 7/71 favorability spread, CNN has an 11/76 favorability spread, and SNL has a 17/61 favorability spread. The musical Hamilton has an 11/45 favorability with Trump voters, compared to 61/3 with Clinton voters.
Our last update on statistical indicators of the Obama presidency before his successor is elected.
By Brooks Jackson, Posted on October 9, 2016.
a) The economy has added nearly 10.7 million jobs.
b) Median household income has gone up $1,140, or 2 percent.
c) The buying power of the average worker’s weekly paycheck is up 4.2 percent.
d) Median sales prices of existing single-family homes are up 23 percent.
e) The unemployment rate has dropped well below the historical norm; job openings are at a 15-year high.
f) Corporate profits and stock prices have both soared to record highs.
g) The number of people lacking health insurance has gone down by 16.5 million.
h) The murder rate is down nearly 5 percent, despite an increase in 2015.
i) The number of unauthorized immigrants estimated to be living in the U.S. is down, according to demographers.
j) Wind and solar power have quadrupled; coal production has dropped 36 percent; carbon emissions have gone down 12 percent.
The Truth About Ronald Reagan
by Michael Kinsley
Every serious G.O.P. presidential aspirant invokes the glorious era of Ronald Reagan, to which the country must return. Ignore the fact that, for the likes of Paul Ryan and Rand Paul, Reagan’s actual record—from increased bureaucracy to higher deficits—should be seen as a complete failure.
What you cannot get many Republicans to admit is that the entire Reaganite golden age is a fantasy—even if they really think so. Why burst the bubble?
What can people possibly mean when they say they want America to “return” to being a country ruled by the values of Ronald Reagan? When was this blissful time when thrift and hard work were rewarded and the government knew its place? Certainly not when Reagan was actually president. Under President Reagan (1981–89), the size of the federal government increased by any measure. Executive-branch civilian employment, which covers almost everything except the uniformed military and the Postal Service, was 2.109 million in 1981 and 2.129 million in 1989. Total federal-government employment rose during this period from 4.9 million to 5.3 million people.
I could go on. Well, why not? Reagan inherited a federal budget of $599 billion in revenue, $678 billion in spending, and a deficit of $79 billion. He left office with a federal budget of $909 billion in revenue, a little less than $1.1 trillion in spending, and a deficit of $155 billion.
If you’re looking for a good bureaucracy slasher, try Bill Clinton. In his eight years, the size of the executive-branch workforce dropped more than 10 percent, from 2.9 million to 2.6 million. Plus, Clinton has got a better “overcoming adversity” story than anyone was able to concoct for Reagan. Reagan’s life, like his disposition, was overwhelmingly sunny. He grew up middle-class in the Midwest, enjoyed relatively quick success in Hollywood, moved into politics, and triumphed there too. Clinton had a Southern Gothic upbringing—he famously had to stop his stepfather from beating his mother. Nothing that dramatic on Reagan’s résumé.
In his book A Simple Government, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee (who won the door prize in the 2008 election: his own TV show) praised Reagan’s mastery of the economy and the federal budget: “When President Reagan cut the top [income tax] rate from 70% to 28%, revenues went from $517 billion in 1980 to over a trillion in 1990. When the Reagan tax cuts took effect in 1983, real growth (not just inflationary growth) jumped 7.5% in 1983 and 5.5% in 1984 after no growth in 1981 and 1982. Our GDP grew by a third during Reagan’s two terms.”
Well, yes and no (but mostly no). Reagan wasn’t president for 10 years (it just seemed that way). Inflation alone in Reagan’s eight years would have raised the value of $599 billion of revenue to $780 billion, even if the real economy had flatlined. It’s true that the G.D.P. grew by a third during Reagan’s two terms. In the two terms that followed (George Bush and Clinton I), it rose by nearly as much, and in Clinton’s last term it soared.
21 Reasons Why Ronald Reagan Was a Terrible President.
1. Reagan Supplied Weapons to America's Enemies
Reagan armed Saddam Hussein's Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war despite the fact that it was widely known Iraq was using chemical weapons against civilian populations in violation of international law.
2. Reagan Ignored the Atrocities Committed by Saddam Hussein
Even after the whole world condemned Saddam Hussein for using chemical weapons to kill over 5,000 Kurdish civilians in Iraq, the Reagan administration continued to provide weapons and tactical information to Iraq. Iraq used this information to target its enemies with chemical weapons. Reagan even vetoed a UN resolution condemning Iraq.
3. Reagan Illegally Supplied Arms to Both Sides of the Iran-Iraq War
While he was supplying Iraq with weapons, Reagan also armed Iran during the Iran-Iraq War in direct violation of a U.S. law that he had signed.
4. Reagan Caved in to the Demands of Terrorists
After several Americans were taken hostage by terrorists in Lebanon, Reagan provided weapons to Iran in exchange for their release. Despite this concession, ultimately more hostages were taken.
5. Reagan Caved in to the Demands of Terrorists Again
After Reagan sent Marines to Beirut for a peacekeeping mission, a terrorist’s truck bomb killed 241 U.S. Marines. Reagan responded by immediately doing exactly what the terrorists wanted, pulling all the troops out of Beirut.
6. Reagan Was Weak in the War on Terrorism
After the bombing of the US Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, Reagan promised to track down and punish the terrorists who committed that horrible act. He never followed up on that promise.
7. Reagan Didn't Obey His Own Laws
Reagan illegally supplied weapons to Nicaraguan rebels in violation of a law that he himself had signed.
8. Reagan Supported the Violent Overthrow of a Democratically Elected Government
President Reagan illegally supported the Nicaraguan Contras, whom he called “Freedom Fighters,” despite the facts that they killed civilians and wanted to overthrow the democratically elected government to restore the dictatorship that previously existed in Nicaragua.
9. Reagan Started an Unnecessary War to Take Attention away from His Failure in Beirut
Just days after the bombing that killed 241 Marines in Beirut, Reagan launched an attack on the island of Grenada to remove Cuban soldiers there. This successfully took attention away from the devastating loss of those Marines in Beirut
10. Reagan Failed to Defend Us from Saddam Hussein
When an Iraqi fighter jet fired a missile into a U.S. Navy ship in 1987, killing 37 men, Reagan did nothing in response to the attack. Iraq is still the only non-allied country to attack a U.S. warship without retaliation.
11. Reagan Helped Create Al Qaeda
The Reagan administration armed and supported the Mujahideen rebels in Afghanistan. Many members of the Mujahideen, like Osama bin Laden, used their experience in Afghanistan to help them form the terrorist organization Al Qaeda.
12. Reagan Supported the Racist Apartheid Government in South Africa
When the white minority in South Africa (just 10% of the population) brutally repressed the black majority, even denying them the right to vote, the U.S. Congress overwhelmingly passed the Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 to apply pressure to South Africa to end Apartheid. President Reagan opposed any sanctions on South Africa and vetoed that bill. Congress was forced to override his veto.
13. Reagan Supported the Most Brutal Dictators in the World as Long as He Didn't Consider Them “Communists”
He supported Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega. Later, when Noriega became too close with Fidel Castro, we suddenly considered him an enemy and removed him from power.
Reagan supported Saddam Hussein when he committed the most brutal atrocities on Earth, killing thousands of his own people. Years later, when Saddam threatened our oil supply, we used these same atrocities as reasons to go to war with him.
Reagan supported Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos even after Marcos killed his political rival and rigged his own reelection.
Reagan supported the brutal regime in El Salvador when it was widely known that they were killing civilians, including Americans. After four American nuns were murdered by Salvadorian soldiers, Reagan’s Secretary of State defended the Salvadorians, suggesting that the nuns might have been shot while trying to run a military roadblock—but this wouldn't explain why they were also raped before they were killed.
14. Reagan’s Administration Had More Documented Corruption Than Any President in U.S. History.
At least 138 Reagan administration officials, including several cabinet members, were investigated for, indicted for, or convicted of crimes. This is the largest number of any U.S. President. Many of them were pardoned by Reagan or President Bush before they could even stand trial.
Secretary of the Interior, James Watt —Indicted on 21 felonies
Attorney General, Edwin Meese —Resigned after investigations of corruption
Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger—Charged with Iran-Contra crimes and pardoned before going to trial
Assistant Secretary of State, Elliot Abrams - Plea bargained for Iran-Contra crimes and pardoned by President Bush
Two National Security Advisors, Robert MacFarlane and John Poindexter—Pleaded guilty to Iran-Contra crimes and were pardoned
Three high ranking CIA officials, Alan Fiers, Clair George and Joseph Fernandez —Convicted and pardoned for Iran-Contra crimes
At least 9 Reagan appointees were convicted of perjury, lying to Congress, obstruction of Congress, or contempt of Congress
15. Reagan Frequently Repeated Bald-Faced Lies Even after They Were Publicly Revealed to Be Untrue
He told stories about having been a U.S. Army photographer assigned to film Nazi death camps. Reagan never visited or filmed any such camps.
He often told a story about a “Chicago Welfare Queen” who had 80 aliases and gotten $150,000 in welfare. She never existed but investigators did find one woman who had two aliases and received $8,000. Reagan continued to tell the false version of the story.
He claimed that trees create more pollution than automobiles, an absurdly untrue statement that he literally pulled out of thin air.
16. Reagan Set Records for Budget Deficits
After criticizing President Carter for having a $50 billion deficit, Reagan’s own deficits exceeded $200 billion. He tripled the national debt in only eight years. Although Republicans blamed Congress for the budget deficits, all eight of the budgets passed by Congress had less spending and smaller deficits than the budgets proposed by Reagan.
17. Reagan's Economic Policies Put Millions of Americans out of Work
When he took office in 1981, unemployment was at 7.5% and dropping. A few months after Reagan’s economic policies took effect, unemployment began to rise again. Millions of people continued to lose their jobs for the next two years until unemployment exceeded 10%. It stayed above 10% for nearly a year, peaking at 10.8%. Three years after he was elected, unemployment was still higher than when he was sworn in.
18. Reagan’s Policies Allowed Hundreds of Thousands of Family Farms to Go out of Business or Declare Bankruptcy
By some accounts, nearly one third of all farms were at risk of being foreclosed during the 1980s. Ronald Reagan vetoed a farm credit bill that would have given farmers some relief. Reagan’s popularity among farmers dropped so low that at one point when discussing the exportation of grain to other countries, Reagan joked that he would like to “keep the grain and export the farmers."
19. Reagan’s Financial Policies Caused the Savings and Loan Industry to Collapse
The financial deregulation and changes to the tax code that President Reagan enacted ultimately caused nearly 750 different financial institutions to fail. All of this cost taxpayers about $150 billion.
20. Reagan Robbed the Social Security Trust Fund to Pay for His Budget Shortfalls
After Reagan cut taxes for the rich, the tax revenue to fund the government was so small that the budget deficit grew to four times what it had been under Jimmy Carter. So Reagan “borrowed” hundreds of billions of dollars from the Social Security trust fund to pay the country’s bills. That money has never been paid back.
21. Reagan Largely Ignored the AIDS Epidemic while Tens of Thousands of People Were Dying of the Disease
Many conservatives in the 1980s believed that AIDS was God’s punishment for being gay. Ronald Reagan did not publicly talk about AIDS until the 6th year of his presidency. In 1986, when AIDS fatalities were doubling every year, Reagan proposed cuts in funding for AIDS research.
White flight is a term that originated in the United States, starting in the 1950s, and applied to the large-scale migration of Albinos to the Suburbs in response to the large migration of blacks from the rural South to northern cities in the Great Migration northward to find factory jobs.
Gentrification is the process by which the children and grandchildren of the "White Flight" people, admit their ancestors mistake and return to the Cities. The renewal and rebuilding accompanying this influx of "middle-class or affluent people" into deteriorating areas, displaces poorer Blacks.
In American politics, the southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans. As the Civil Rights Movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened pre-existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South to the Republican Party, that had traditionally supported the Democratic Party. It also helped push the Republican Party much more to the right.
Although the phrase "Southern strategy" is often attributed to Nixon's political strategist Kevin Phillips, he did not originate it but popularized it. In an interview included in a 1970 New York Times article, Phillips stated his analysis based on studies of ethnic voting: From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats. Republican strategist Lee Atwater discussed the Southern strategy in a 1981 interview later published in Southern Politics in the 1990s by Alexander P. Lamis. Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. “Now Reagan doesn't have to do that”:
All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 ... and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster. Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?
Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."
In 1980, Republican candidate Ronald Reagan made a much-noted appearance at the Neshoba County Fair. His speech there contained the phrase "I believe in states' rights" and was cited as evidence that the Republican Party was building upon the Southern strategy again. Reagan's campaigns used racially coded rhetoric, making attacks on the "welfare state" and leveraging resentment towards affirmative action. Dan Carter explains "Reagan showed that he could use coded language with the best of them, lambasting welfare queens, busing, and affirmative action as the need arose." During his 1976 and 1980 campaigns Reagan employed stereotypes of welfare recipients, often invoking the case of a "welfare queen" with a large house and a Cadillac using multiple names to collect over $150,000 in tax-free income. Aistrup described Reagan's campaign statements as "seemingly race neutral" but explained how whites interpret this in a racial manner, citing a DNC funded study conducted by CRG Communications. Though Reagan did not overtly mention the race of the welfare recipient, the unstated impression in whites' minds were black people and Reagan's rhetoric resonated with Southern white perceptions of black people.
By Alex Roarty
May 01, 2017 6:00 AM
A select group of top Democratic Party strategists have used new data about last year’s presidential election to reach a startling conclusion about why Hillary Clinton lost. Now they just need to persuade the rest of the party they’re right.
Many Democrats have a shorthand explanation for Clinton’s defeat: Her base didn’t turn out, Donald Trump’s did and the difference was too much to overcome. But new information shows that Clinton had a much bigger problem with voters who had supported President Barack Obama in 2012 but backed Trump four years later. Those Obama-Trump voters, in fact, effectively accounted for more than two-thirds of the reason Clinton lost, according to Matt Canter, a senior vice president of the Democratic political firm Global Strategy Group. In his group’s analysis, about 70 percent of Clinton’s failure to reach Obama’s vote total in 2012 was because she lost these voters. In recent months, Canter and other members of Global Strategy Group have delivered a detailed report of their findings to senators, congressmen, fellow operatives and think tank wonks – all part of an ongoing effort to educate party leaders about what the data says really happened in last year’s election.
“We have to make sure we learn the right lesson from 2016, that we don’t just draw the lesson that makes us feel good at night, make us sleep well at night,” Canter said.
His firm’s conclusion is shared broadly by other Democrats who have examined the data, including senior members of Clinton’s campaign and officials at the Democratic data and analytics firm Catalist. (The New York Times, doing its own analysis, reached a similar conclusion.)
2016 Election Day by the numbers;
While this historic election didn't bring the U.S. its first female president, there were some other firsts. Explore the results, reaction and history of Election Day 2016. Each group made its assessment by analyzing voter files, reports that show who voted in every state, and matching them to pre-existing data about the voters, including demographic information and prior vote history. Using this process, the groups have determined how people voted – in what amounts to the most comprehensive way to analyze the electorate short of a full-blown census.
The findings are significant for a Democratic Party, at a historic low point, that’s trying to figure out how it can win back power. Much of the debate over how to move forward has centered on whether the party should try to win back working-class white voters – who make up the bulk of Obama-Trump voters – or focus instead on mobilizing its base. Turning out the base, the data suggests, is simply not good enough. “This idea that Democrats can somehow ignore this constituency and just turn out more of our voters, the math doesn’t work,” Canter said. “We have to do both.” Democrats are quick to acknowledge that even if voters switching allegiance had been Clinton’s biggest problem, in such a close election she still could have defeated Trump with better turnout. She could have won, for instance, if African-American turnout in Michigan and Florida matched 2012 levels. They also emphasize the need for the party to continue finding ways to stoke its base. Democrats can do both, said Guy Cecil, chairman of Priorities USA, a super PAC that backed Clinton last year and now is trying to help Democrats return to power.
“I really do believe that we should reject this idea that if we just focus on turnout and the Democratic base that that will be enough,” he said. “If that really is our approach, we’re going to lose six or seven Senate seats in this election.” “But,” Cecil added, “I also believe that just talking about persuasion means we are not capitalizing on an enormous opportunity.” Priorities USA released a poll last week, conducted in part by Canter’s firm, that found the Democratic base – including voters who usually sit out midterm elections – was unusually motivated to participate in the next election. Officials with the group have preached in recent months that Democrats can both reach out to white working-class voters and their base with a strong message rooted in economic populism. Still, the data says turnout was less of a problem for Clinton than defections were. Even the oft-predicted surge of new voters backing Trump was more myth than reality: Global Strategy Group's presentation included a study about Ohio, conducted by Catalist, that found Clinton actually won a majority of new voters in the state. (Global Strategy Group examined North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Nevada as part of its analysis). Belief that turnout was the main reason Clinton lost, however, remains a prominent theory among Democrats.
“There’s an active conversation within the party about whether persuasion was the problem or turnout,” said Lanae Erickson Hatalsky, vice president for social policy and politics at Third Way, a center-left Democratic think tank. That debate is complicated, she added, because some Democrats think winning over voters is already a lost cause. “There’s still a real concern that persuasion is harder and costs more than mobilization, so let’s just triple down on getting out the people who already agree with us,” she said. “And I think there’s a lot of worry that we don’t actually know how to persuade anymore, and so maybe we should just go talk to the people we agree with.” A conversation about where Democrats go next as a party inevitably turns into a discussion about whether it should embrace a form of economic populism similar to one pushed by liberal icon Bernie Sanders or it should tack instead to the political middle. Canter has his own view of Trump’s success, arguing that the president’s “special sauce” combines his economic populism with a political populism that vilifies both parties.
But he rejects the notion that his firm’s report suggests the party should pursue either direction. Rather, he said he and his partners were simply trying to explain to party leaders exactly why Clinton lost. Without understanding how the party lost, it’s hard to figure out how it can win again.“We don’t need to be Republican-lite,” Canter said. “All we’re saying is this is the electoral challenge. In order to win, this is the challenge we have to solve. And there are a lot of good arguments for how we can solve it.”
A Commentary By Geoffrey Skelley
Thursday, June 01, 2017
Using different surveys to try to answer an oft-asked question.
In the immediate aftermath of the 2016 presidential election, many observers understandably focused on the numerous places that swung from Barack Obama to Donald Trump. Because many of these areas congregated in swing states within the Rust Belt and Midwest, they played a pivotal role in Trump’s victory, as shown by the movement toward the GOP in Map 1 below. But how many total voters really switched from Obama to Trump in 2016? Different data sources tell a different story, but the answer is certainly in the millions.
We looked at three sources to try to gauge the raw number of voters who backed Obama in 2012 but then voted for Trump in 2016. Unfortunately, the 2016 exit poll did not ask respondents about their 2012 vote, having last done so in 2008. While exit polls are imperfect, it at least would have served as another data point.
At present, two regular national election studies have released 2016 data: the American National Election Study and the Cooperative Congressional Election Study. Both asked respondents about their 2016 vote but also inquired whether or not they voted in 2012 and for whom they voted. In addition to these studies, the University of Virginia Center for Politics recently partnered with Public Opinion Strategies to survey the attitudes of Trump voters, and as a part of that poll, respondents were asked about their prior voting history. Together, these three surveys allow us to roughly estimate the number of Obama 2012-Trump 2016 voters.
However, there’s an important caveat: self-reported past voting behavior has limited value. Voters do not always accurately recall the past. Academic research has found that a number of different factors can explain these discrepancies. Bias toward current political preferences can affect responses, as can simple forgetfulness — as much as it may surprise hardcore politicos, many Americans don’t necessarily remember their voter information with precision. While four years doesn’t seem like a very long time, one Dutch study found that the probability of someone consistently recalling their vote fell by about six percentage points over 3.5 years. Moreover, voters may remember a previous winner better than a loser, and thus some people who voted for the prior loser may not remember if they voted, while others will misremember voting for the winner.
Another consideration is sample error — always a challenge. Any estimate of a population has some margin of error. And some of the study data remain preliminary. For example, the CCES will release updated data after validating the votes for respondents in an effort to gain greater accuracy. These considerations mean that the estimates below should be treated with caution. They are our best data-informed guesses.
Overall, 59% of respondents in the 2016 ANES reported voting in both 2012 and 2016, with 68% claiming to have voted in 2012 while 74% voted in 2016. Of the 2012 and 2016 voters, 6% of all voters supported Trump while reportedly backing Obama in 2012. Conversely, just 2% reported voting for Mitt Romney in 2012 while casting ballots for Hillary Clinton in 2016.
We then examined each candidate’s base of support by respondents’ reported 2012 vote. The ANES data show that just over 13% of Trump’s voters backed Obama in 2012, while about 4% of Clinton’s support came from voters who voted for Romney in 2012. Going across the rows in Table 1, we get the breakdown by 2012 vote for those who backed each 2016 vote choice.
Overall, if we estimate the raw totals using these percentages while working off of Trump’s nearly 63 million votes and Clinton’s almost 66 million votes, the ANES data suggest that about 8.4 million 2012 Obama voters backed Trump in 2016 and 2.5 million Romney voters supported Clinton. However, as we pointed out above, there are reasons to be skeptical of reported past vote. Overall, 58% of respondents to the 2016 ANES who said they voted in 2012 (including those who didn’t vote in 2016) claimed to have voted for Obama, seven points more than the 51% Obama actually won in 2012. Meanwhile, Romney only won 40% of the vote of those who said they cast a ballot in 2012, seven points fewer than the 47% Romney really won in 2012. Although there may have been a sizable number of voters who cast ballots in 2012 but didn’t vote in 2016 and vice versa, it would not be surprising if Obama’s percentage were somewhat inflated and Romney’s a bit diminished. This would be due to some of the complications associated with voter recall of past votes. If so, this would mean the 8.4 million Obama 2012-Trump 2016 figure is exaggerated, while the 2.5 million Romney 2012-Clinton 2016 figure is probably too small. Still, the weighted ANES data slightly undershot Trump’s 46% of the popular vote and overshot Clinton’s 48%, so that could mean the data aren’t especially exaggerated.
The CCES found similar shares of Obama-Trump and Romney-Clinton voters compared to the ANES, at least as a percentage of all 2016 voters. In the case of the former, the CCES found 5% of all 2016 voters backed Obama in 2012 but Trump in 2016, and — like the ANES — 2% voted for Romney in 2012 and Clinton in 2016. Breaking down each candidate’s base of support by 2012 vote, the CCES data found that about 11% of Trump’s voters backed Obama in 2012, while only 4% of Clinton’s support came from voters who voted for Romney in 2012. But the CCES found a larger share of consistent partisans on both sides between the 2012 and 2016 cycles, particularly among the Republicans, and a smaller share of new voters than the ANES. With these differences, the estimated raw vote total worked out to about 6.7 million Obama-Trump voters and 2.7 million Romney-Clinton voters.  While the ANES found 58% of respondents who said they voted in 2012 backed Obama, the CCES’s figure was 54%, closer to the actual percentage. Thus, it’s possible that the estimates based on the CCES data are closer to reality.
Overall, 20% of Trump voters in the Center’s April 2017 survey reported voting for Obama in one of 2008 and 2012, or in both cycles. For our purposes, the figure of interest is the percentage who claimed to have backed Obama in 2012. About 15% of respondents said they either voted for Obama twice (11%) or just in 2012 (4%). Based on Trump’s overall popular vote, the poll’s finding suggests that roughly 9.2 million Trump voters cast a ballot for Obama in 2012, a higher estimate than those based off the two election studies.
Different sources offer varying estimates of Obama 2012-Trump 2016 voters. The ANES found that about 13% of all Trump voters cast a ballot for Obama in 2012. Meanwhile, the CCES found a slightly smaller figure of around 11%. Lastly, the UVA Center for Politics poll found that about 15% of Trump voters claimed to have backed Obama four years earlier. Using these percentages (not rounded) and Trump’s overall 2016 vote total, estimates of the raw number of such Obama-Trump voters range from about 6.7 million to 9.2 million. That’s a wide range, and considering the caveats regarding voter recall of past votes, it is important to be clear about the relative uncertainty of these figures.
Nonetheless, these surveys offer additional evidence about a critical part of the 2016 equation: the millions of voters who switched from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016. Given the extremely close margins in some states, particularly the Rust Belt trio of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, these voters played a crucial role in handing over the White House to the GOP.
1. We do not use decimal places in the article to avoid exaggerating precision. But the raw vote estimates were produced from unrounded percentages. The ANES found that 13.4% of Trump backers reported supporting Obama in 2012 and 3.8% of Clinton backers reported supporting Romney.
2. The raw vote estimates were produced from unrounded percentages. The CCES found that 10.6% of Trump backers reported supporting Obama in 2012 and 4.1% of Clinton backers reported supporting Romney.
3. The raw vote estimate was produced from an unrounded percentage. The UVA Center for Politics/Public Opinion Strategies poll found that 14.6% of Trump backers reported supporting Obama in 2012.
By Sean McElwee and Jason McDaniel - May 8, 2017
Was Donald Trump elected because of racism or economic anxiety? Few questions about the 2016 election have generated more analysis. As we’ve previously written, it is clear racism propelled Trump to the Republican nomination. But how did the racial resentment that powered Trump’s ascent differ from the support for Republican candidates in prior elections? And what was the relative importance of economic peril to voting in 2016 compared to several different types of racism and racial animus exhibited by voters? The answers can be found in the comprehensive American National Election Studies pre- and post-election survey of over 4,000 respondents, which we analyzed to explore the impact of racism and economic peril on 2016 voting behavior. The results are clear, and move a long way towards settling this debate.
Our analysis shows Trump accelerated a realignment in the electorate around racism, across several different measures of racial animus—and that it helped him win. By contrast, we found little evidence to suggest individual economic distress benefited Trump. The American political system is sorting so that racial progressivism and economic progressivism are aligned in the Democratic Party and racial conservatism and economic conservatism are aligned in the Republican Party. How We Performed The Analysis In order to get at how various dimensions and aspects of racial animus and xenophobia impacted voting in 2016, we created three different indexes using questions from the newly released ANES 2016 Time Series Survey. First, we created a racial resentment scale, based on a series of four questions developed by Lynn Sanders and Donald Kinder. Racial resentment measures dog-whistle or color-blind forms of racism, such as the belief that black people need to simply “try harder” to be successful in America, or that generations of discrimination do not hold back black Americans. However, some have criticized the concept of racial resentment and the various questions designed to measure it as essentially equating conservative beliefs and “race-neutral” principles with racism and racial animus. We believe that such concerns are exaggerated and that racial resentment captures an important dimension of racial animus in American politics.
Nonetheless, in order to speak to such concerns, we created a second measure we call “black influence animosity” derived from questions that more directly examine voters’ views about whether the US government favors black people over white people and how much influence black people have in US politics.
Third, we created a scale based on views about immigration—such as whether one believes immigrants are more likely to commit crimes and take away jobs. We created a stereotyping scale which measures views like believing people of color are more violent or lazier than whites, but it was not included in our final models because it did not predict voting behavior.
In addition to our racial attitude measures, we created a scale to measure perceptions of personal economic peril or anxiety, which includes respondents’ answers about their ability to make house payments and pay for medicines and other important costs, and worries about job security and personal finances.
These specific queries are more useful than broader questions like someone’s views on the economy, which tends to be tainted by partisanship. On the economic peril scale, there were no differences across party controlling for age, income, education, race and gender. In contrast, views on whether the economy had gotten worse in the past year were strongly influenced by partisanship, controlling for other factors.
The charts below show average values for our variables by race and party. Although the plight of economically insecure white people has been placed at the center of much of the analysis of the election, our analysis indicates that black and Latino respondents tend to express significantly higher levels of economic peril compared to whites or Asians, who as a group, express below average levels of economic peril.
There is very little difference between Democratic and Republican partisans on this scale. Independents, however, express significantly higher levels of economic insecurity. Although Republicans and Democrats do not, on average, express different levels of economic anxiety, there are clear differences between Republicans and Democrats on the measures of racial attitudes towards African-Americans and the measure of pro-immigration attitudes. Democrats express dramatically lower anti-black attitudes on both scales compared to Republicans or Independents. On the black influence animosity scale the divide between Democrats and Republicans is even greater than on the racial resentment scale. The average score of Obama to Trump voters on the black influence animosity scale (.43) was far more similar to Trump voters (.48) than Clinton voters (.21). Obama to Trump voters also had an average score the immigration scale (.44) closer to Trump voters (.43) than Clinton voters (.69). Unsurprisingly, Republicans express significantly lower pro-immigration attitudes compared to Democratic partisans.
For the purposes of testing the relative impact of individual economic anxiety and racial animus, the ANES survey is ideal. We modelled a few different outcomes: what predicts votes for Trump and what predicted an Obama to Trump flip. The sample of Obama to non-voters or third-party voters was too small to study. All of our models also control for income, age, gender, religiosity, education, ideology and party identification.
In our models, racial attitudes towards blacks and immigration are the key factors associated with support for Trump. The way that these variables impact Trump support can be seen in the charts below. Both racial resentment and black influence animosity are significant predictors of Trump support among white respondents, independent of partisanship, ideology, education levels, and the other factors included in the model. The results indicate a probability of Trump support higher than 60 percent for an otherwise typical white voter who scores at the highest levels on either anti-black racial resentment or anti-black influence animosity. This compares to less than 30 percent chance for a typical white voter with below average scores on either of the two measures anti-black attitudes. There is approximately a 10 percent probability of a Trump vote for an otherwise typical white voter at the lowest levels of racial resentment.
The effect of immigration attitudes for white people is even stronger than anti-black attitudes. The results predict an approximately 80 percent probability of voting for Trump for an otherwise average white person with the most anti-immigrant attitudes, compared to less than 20 percent for a white person with the most pro-immigrant attitudes. To put these results in context, the magnitude of the effects of each of the three variables—racial resentment, black influence animosity, and immigration attitudes—is comparable to the effect of partisan identification. The change in probability of a Trump vote for a white person with the highest to the lowest levels of racial animus is similar to changing their party identification from Republican to Democratic.
Our results also indicate that economic peril was not a significant predictor of voting for Trump once either racial attitudes or immigration attitudes are included in the models. As shown in the chart below, Trump vote probability for an average white person does not change regardless of whether they express high or low levels of economic insecurity.
This result is markedly different in comparison to the 2012 election, when higher levels of economic anxiety was associated with lower levels of support for Mitt Romney among the average white person. In addition to the lack of any economic anxiety effect among white people, our model indicates that the only detectable economic anxiety effect is among black respondents, who were even less likely to vote for Trump as their level of economic peril increased. In fact, for the average black person, economic peril was the predictor variable that had the strongest negative impact on likelihood of supporting Donald Trump.
Our final set of results put an even finer point on the dubious nature of 2016 analyses that emphasize white economic anxiety. For one, as shown above, Latinos and African-Americans scored higher on our economic peril scale than did whites. Any analysis of the role of economic anxiety during the 2016 election that fails to consider the experience of Latinos and black people can only be called misleading.
When we model the factors that predict whether someone expresses economic anxiety, we find that Republicans have significantly lower levels of economic anxiety compared to Democrats and Independents, and that there is no significant difference in economic peril between Clinton and Trump voters. Most importantly, as shown in the chart below, the two strongest predictors of white economic anxiety are attitudes towards immigration and black-influence animosity. Among a typical white person, anti-black and anti-immigrant attitudes feed negative perceptions of personal economic hardship. Not only is there no effect of income or economic anxiety for white people on Trump support once racial attitudes are taken into account, there is strong evidence that these racial attitudes cause economic anxiety rather than the other way around. A result that is consistent with earlier research by Michael Tesler, the influential scholar of race and politics.
This is not to say that fundamental economic conditions played no role in the election. Research suggests that the housing crisis may have affected voting patterns. Other research has linked poor health outcomes and trade to Trump voting. Other work has found that financial crises increase the electoral success of far-right parties. People do not experience politics as atomic units, but as part of communities. However, it is very difficult to see in the survey data any evidence that individual personal hardship among whites played a powerful role in the election.
So what’s going on? Well, it seems Trump is both the product, and a further catalyst of, the increasing sorting of parties along racial attitudes.
What does sorting mean? One example from history is abortion: for a long time there were pro-life Democrats and pro-choice Republicans, but parties have sorted so that party identification strongly predicts views on abortion. Similarly, there used to be racially liberal Republicans (think of George Romney) and racially conservative Democrats (think Robert Byrd). As recently as 2000, George Bush discussed micro-agressions at the Republican National Convention and pushed for immigration reform, though his presidency was defined by anti-Muslim fearmongering and callousness towards the victims of Katrina.
Still, as other research has shown, many low-interest voters still had trouble distinguishing parties in terms of attitudes about aid to black Americans as late as 2008. Obama’s election and the subsequent backlash ensured that very few racial progressives would vote for Republicans and very few racially resentful individuals would vote for Democrats. As the chart above shows, individuals are now well-sorted into parties and Republicans score nearly twice as high on our explicit racial resentment scale.
The one-two punch of Obama’s presidency and Trump’s candidacy sent a clear signal to voters what the parties stood for: diversity on one side, resentment on the other. Trump built upon a decades-long campaign to erase support for the safety net by racializing government programs but extended it further by openly demonizing people of color. Graphs from political scientist Thomas Wood show this relationship clearly: voters are increasingly sorted along the lines of racial resentment. At the same time, the role of income has been twisted: “While the wealthy are usually most likely to vote for the Republican, they didn’t this time; and while the poor are usually less likely to vote for the Republican, they were unusually supportive of Trump.”
It’s likely that political elites (party leaders, activists, media organizations) will continue on the current path and the issue of identity will fully map onto the current political divides. Economic conservatism and white nationalism will become more fully intertwined for Republicans, as will racial and economic equity for Democrats. Republicans have shown little interest in attempting to hold back Trump’s openly racist rhetoric. On the other side, few Democrats have proposed abandoning civil rights (and those who have met intense backlash). Democrats may press forward with an economic, racial and gender progressive agenda, while Republicans continue to tie economic conservatism to white identity politics.
Another possible outcome would be for economic issues to simply further fall off the political map, with identity becoming the central battleground in American politics. This would involve Democrats reducing their commitments to economic equality, while Republicans embrace a sort of ethnonationalism. For instance, Trump could try to follow the pathway of Viktor Orban in Hungary, nationalizing industries to lower consumer prices while also spouting xenophobic rhetoric. Another model would be the Law and Justice party in Poland, which has melded anti-Semitism and a populist agenda including child tax benefits. Trump has made signals in this direction—for instance his push for a big infrastructure bill.
However, so far, nothing like this has materialized, and powerful interests within the Republican Party would strongly oppose any action in this direction. For this reason, we think this realignment is unlikely with the current status quo—Trump has expressed no interest in attempting to make it happen, nor has any Republican statewide elected officials. Though such a realignment is unlikely, progressives should be concerned about such an outcome for two reasons: First, the confluence of racial and economic inequality in the United States means that there are more poor whites than rich non-whites available to migrate between party coalitions—a fact that may have been overlooked by the Clinton campaign. Second, without economic redistribution, progressive goals on LGBT rights, racial justice, and gender equity are unattainable. Civil rights without economic redistribution will leave many behind, from transgender homeless kids to home healthcare workers. The right, however, has powerful incentives to continue increasing the salience of identity, which will mask their regressive politics.
By Sean McElwee and Jason McDaniel
March 14, 2017
The 2016 presidential election will go down as the election that spawned a million takes. Much of this debate centered around whether the rise of Donald Trump was primarily due to economic anxiety or whether his support was an expression of resentment of racial minority groups and immigrants. In previous analyses of Trump’s support during the primaries, we showed that racial resentment played a larger role in the 2016 election than economic concerns. Recently released survey data from the Voter Study Group allows us to ascertain in what ways Trump’s general election support compares to previous elections. The data also give us the opportunity to focus in on those voters who switched from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016, and compare them to those voters who did not support Trump in 2016 but voted for Romney in 2012.
We find that opinions about how increasing racial diversity will affect American society had much more impact on support for Trump during the 2016 election compared to support for the Republican candidates in the two previous presidential elections. We also find that individuals with high levels of racial resentment were more likely to switch from Obama to Trump, but those with low racial resentment and more positive views about rising diversity voted for Romney but not Trump. In short, our analysis indicates that Donald Trump successfully leveraged existing resentment towards African Americans in combination with emerging fears of increased racial diversity in America to reshape the presidential electorate, strongly attracting nativists towards Trump and pushing some more affluent and highly educated people with more cosmopolitan views to support Hillary Clinton. Racial identity and attitudes have further displaced class as the central battleground of American politics. Fear Of The New American Electorate
Research suggests, for instance, that reminding whites who have high levels of ethnic identification about rising diversity leads them to view Trump more favorably. (This finding is supported by other similar research.) We find evidence for the idea that rising diversity helped fuel Trump’s rise in the Cooperative Congressional Analysis Project data set, a survey that interviewed respondents during both the 2012 and 2016 elections (a panel survey). Because the survey includes data on multiple elections, we can compare how views have shifted support for political candidates.
For our analysis, we explored four questions about how rising diversity would impact the nation:
Now, as you may know, census projections show that by 2043, African Americans, Latinos, Asians, and other mixed racial and ethnic groups will together be a majority of the population. Thinking about the likely impact of this coming demographic change, how much you agree or disagree with each of these statements? Americans will learn more from one another and be enriched by exposure to many different cultures. A bigger, more diverse workforce will lead to more economic growth. There will be too many demands on government services. There will not be enough jobs for everybody. We combined these variables into a single measure, with 0 meaning most likely to believe that demographic change will have positive consequences and 1 indicating views that diversity will have negative consequences. As displayed in the chart below, opinions about increasing racial diversity vary across racial groups, partisan lines, and education levels. The average score on the diversity scale is .44, indicating that Americans lean towards being more optimistic about rising diversity. However, the average white person views increasing racial diversity more negatively than the average person of color in America. Whites were less optimistic about diversity, with a mean score of .47, compared to .34 for African Americans, .40 among Latinos, and .37 among Asians. Republicans and those with a high-school diploma or less exhibit the highest amount of negativity towards increasing racial diversity in America.
To test how views on diversity affected voting during the 2016 election, we created a model that controls for age, race, education, income, gender, party identification, concern about rising immigration, racial resentment, and worries about personal finances. In order to provide some historical context for how Trump reshaped the electorate, we also modeled voting for Mitt Romney in 2012 and John McCain in 2008. The results, displayed in the chart below, show that probability of support for Trump increases sharply with negative views on rising diversity, and positive views towards diversity decrease the probability of voting for Trump. Interestingly, these attitudes have no significant effect on probability of voting for Romney or McCain. While race and racial attitudes have been and continue to play an important role in support for Republican presidential candidates, fears about growing racial diversity appear to be uniquely important to support for Trump compared to previous Republican candidates. Although our analysis does not speak to whether these attitudes were primed by Trump’s campaign, or whether he capitalized on emergent attitudes and rode them to victory, it seems clear that they will play a key role in the future of the Republican Party.
Our analysis also shows that seeing racial diversity as a threat also helps to explain what motivated those voters who switched from voting for Barack Obama in 2012 to voting for Trump in 2016.
The CCAP data indicate that 9 percent of Obama 2012 voters switched to Trump in 2016, and about 5 percent of Romney 2012 voters defected from Trump by voting for Hillary Clinton, and 6 percent voted for another candidate. Perceiving growing racial diversity as a threat strongly predicts Obama to Trump vote switchers, and more positive attitudes towards diversity predict the probability that a Romney 2012 voter would defect from the Republican nominee in 2016. The chart below shows that among whites most accepting of diversity there was a predicted 33 percent chance of defecting, compared to a 2 percent chance for whites with the most negative views about rising diversity. Among whites with the most positive views of rising diversity, the model predicts a less than 2 percent chance of an Obama voter’s voting for Trump. This compares to a 50 percent chance of voting for Trump among whites with the most negative views of rising diversity. Moreover, our analysis indicates that these attitudes had a stronger effect on vote switchers than any other variable, including racial resentment and attitudes towards immigration.
Additional analysis reveals differences between white Republican and Democratic identifiers who switched from Obama to Trump. Seeing diversity as a threat had a particularly strong effect on white Republican identifiers who switched from Obama to Trump, but a comparatively modest effect on white Democratic switchers. Similarly, racial resentment towards blacks had a stronger impact on the probability of Obama-to-Trump vote switching for white Republicans compared to white Democrats.
Fears about immigration were also linked to Trump support. However, we find little evidence to support the idea that concerns about trade deals or a rigged system contributed significantly to a Trump victory. Neither the trade-policy baseline question nor a scale of questions about trade policy predicted Trump support. Questions about whether the political system benefits wealthy elites predicted vote choice—but in the wrong direction. People who agreed that the system benefited powerful elites were more likely to reject Trump. Increasingly, class is simply not a meaningful dimension along which American politics is fought. In our regressions, income predicted support for McCain and Romney, but not Trump.
Rather, the battle-lines are drawn around issues of racial identity and tolerance of diversity. Research suggests that high-income people of color are more supportive of the Democratic Party than low-income whites. In the 2016 election, the traditional Democratic advantage among low-income people was deeply diminished. Corporations, long seen as the enemy for progressives, are increasingly seen as allies on issues like immigration and LGBT rights. Unions, once the backbone of the Democratic Party, have waned in influence, and many found their members receptive to Trump’s message. On the right, nativism has stalled hopes for immigration reform among the party’s business wing.
Trump’s early days in office are not those of a politician concerned about class. Rather, Trump has aggressively worked to enshrine favoritism for straight, white male Christians as the law of the land. The North American Free Trade Agreement, jobs, and infrastructure spending quickly fell off of his agenda, to be replaced by deportations, attacks on trans students and immigrants, coupled with obscure deregulatory measures to appease the business class.
Perhaps socialism never took hold in the United States is because workers believe themselves to be “temporarily embarrassed millionaires,” as a popular saying goes. There is certainly evidence of this. But another explanation is that, throughout history, divides within the working class have been more salient than divides between the working class and the rich. Race, gender, immigration status, and religious status have served as such wedges. Right-wing movements are rising in places with radically different economic systems. From the laissez-faire United States, to the more government-dominated France, to England and the Nordic social democracies. The former Soviet Bloc members that were once seen as evidence of the power of the mixed-economy, such as Hungary and Poland, have seen a rise in right-wing parties. It doesn’t matter whether the middle class is shrinking or growing: India, the poster child for globalization, has also seen rising populist authoritarianism. These right-wing parties don’t always take the same approach to budgets and economics, with some favoring populism and others austerity. A study of right-wing parties in Europe finds that immigration and race are more central to their appeal than class, noting that, there are “several examples of populist right parties experiencing electoral success without mobilizing grievances over economic changes or political elitism and corruption.”
Politics in the United States and much of the globe is now defined by the questions of tolerance and diversity. Progressives still embrace an economically liberal program, but Obama’s election and Trump’s rise has raised more urgent questions about whether the country should have an open or closed society. This helps explain the Democratic coalition, which consists of young people, people of color, unmarried women, LGBT people as well as Silicon Valley tech titans. It explains why Clinton faltered with non-college whites while bringing in more upscale, college-educated voters who traditionally voted for Romney. The current trajectory is towards a political system in which battles about class interest are obfuscated by a clash over the openness of society.
By Jesse A. Myerson
May 8, 2017
Throughout the 2016 campaign, amid the shock of its results, and in the various recapitulations of its lessons, great swaths of the mainstream and liberal press have been consistent about whom they blame for Donald Trump and his ultra-right-wing administration: the white working class. “That’s what Trump is playing to,” The New Yorker’s George Packer told NPR’s Terry Gross days before the election. “It’s a really dangerous, volatile game, but that’s…maybe the biggest story of this election.” In the weeks after the election, liberal-hotshot-of-yesteryear Markos Moulitsas found it appropriate to crow over retired coal miners losing their health coverage from his office in gentrifying Oakland. Even today, the contempt remains obvious: Self-appointed “resistance” leader and actual flag-wearer Keith Olbermann could find no better way to insult his fellow multimillionaires Sarah Palin, Kid Rock, and Ted Nugent than by calling them “trailer park trash.”
Even according to pundits on the traditional right, one can find the reason for Trump’s success festering in lower-income white communities, the enemies of racial and social progress, where reactionary politics and redneck racism run rampant. “The white American underclass,” according to National Review’s Kevin D. Williamson, “is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin.” According to this analysis, Trump’s fascism is merely a reflection of the debased preferences of poor people.
But scapegoating poor whites keeps the conversation away from fascism’s real base: the petite bourgeoisie. This is a piece of jargon used mostly by Marxists to denote small-property owners, whose nearest equivalents these days may be the “upper middle class” or “small-business owners.” FiveThirtyEight reported last May that “the median household income of a Trump voter so far in the primaries is about $72,000,” or roughly 130 percent of the national median. Trump’s real base, the actual backbone of fascism, isn’t poor and working-class voters, but middle-class and affluent whites. Often self-employed, possessed of a retirement account and a home as a nest egg, this is the stratum taken in by Horatio Alger stories. They can envision playing the market well enough to become the next Trump. They haven’t won “big-league,” but they’ve won enough to be invested in the hierarchy they aspire to climb. If only America were made great again, they could become the haute bourgeoisie—the storied “1 percent.”
Trump’s most institutionally entrenched middle-class base includes police and Border Patrol unions, whom he promptly unleashed after his inauguration by allowing them free rein in enforcing his vague but terrifying immigration orders, and by appointing an attorney general who would call off investigations into troubled police departments. As wanton as their human-rights atrocities in the years leading up to the Trump era have been, law-enforcement agents are already making their earlier conduct look like a model of restraint. They are Trump’s most passionate supporters and make concrete his contempt for anyone not white, male, and rich.
Always and everywhere, this sort of petit bourgeois constitutes the core of fascism. In The Mass Psychology of Fascism, his look at the German economy and ideology in the five years preceding Adolf Hitler’s rise to power, Wilhelm Reich argued that this was largely because of the petite bourgeoisie’s dependence on the patriarchal family unit, which he called the “central reactionary germ cell” of “the authoritarian state.” As the “heads” of their families, small-business-owning men often exploited their wives and children and enforced a patriarchal morality on them in the interest of protecting their somewhat vulnerable enterprises. This oriented the petite bourgeoisie structurally toward reactionary politics.
If the petit-bourgeois American suburbs embody a sexist hierarchy, they exist in order to enforce a racist one. In the mid-20th century, white northern and western urbanites faced a choice: Stay in the cities where Jim Crow was driving a “Great Migration” of millions of black people, or flee to the new suburban residential developments, complete with racist exclusionary charters. The Federal Housing Administration made the choice easy: Its policy redlined neighborhoods where black people were settling as having low “residential security,” thus making financial services inaccessible. In white-only suburban communities, however, the FHA was pleased to guarantee home mortgages. “There goes the neighborhood,” said millions, and fled.
Their material security bound up in the value of their real-estate assets, suburban white people had powerful incentives to keep their neighborhoods white. Just by their very proximity, black people would make their neighborhoods less desirable to future white home-buyers, thereby depreciating the value of the location. Location being the first rule of real estate, suburban homeowners nurtured racist attitudes, while deluding themselves that they weren’t excluding black people for reasons beyond their pocketbooks.
In recent decades, rising urban rents have been pushing lower-income people to more peripheral locations. As suburbia has grown poorer, the more affluent homeowners have fled for the even greener pastures of exurbia. Everywhere they turn, their economic anxiety
And yet, “among people I talk to, ‘economic anxiety’ has become kind of a joke slogan,” New York Times columnist Paul Krugman told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, by way of explaining Trump’s rise. “I mean, there is real economic hardship. West Virginia is not a happy place. But…it’s really mostly about race.” Krugman and Amanpour’s seamless transition from “anxiety” to “hardship” betrays the assumption that haunted the entire discussion: that the only form of economic anxiety is deprivation. To the contrary, the form of economic anxiety propelling the racism of devoted Trump supporters is associated with paying taxes; with jealously guarding their modest savings; with stopping black people from moving nearby and diminishing the value of their property and thus the quality of their kids’ schools; and with preserving the patriarchal family structure that facilitates it all.
So where do white working-class people fit in? When I use the phrase “working class” here, I mean “in and adjacent to poverty.” The first thing to understand about the political participation of these folks is that, as Bernie Sanders noted during the Democratic primaries, “poor people don’t vote”—not only because of their alienation from politics, but also because of voter suppression, a lack of education and transportation, and all the other practical ills of poverty. The lower you go down the economic ladder in America, the less likely an eligible voter is to go to the polls.
Needless to say, there are many white working-class people fully on board with Trump’s program. Even the portion who merely tolerate his racism and xenophobia, so long as he delivers contracts to build pipelines, present a major political challenge. But as we consider, post-election, who belongs in the “resistance,” we are making a high-stakes claim if we regard working-class white people as so irredeemably bigoted that they should not be a part of it. Any political alignment capable of addressing the deep economic inequality that fortifies and exacerbates every other problem in American life will require working-class unity across racial, gender, and sexual categories, and around shared interests. While drawing working-class white people into this coalition requires a formidable political struggle, excluding them from it makes marshaling the numbers necessary to achieve and wield power impossible.
Whiteness itself confers a degree of property, as the legal scholar Cheryl I. Harris has described, and poor and working-class whites, who lack other forms of property, therefore have reason to try to protect it. This led W.E.B. Du Bois to observe: “So long as the Southern white laborers could be induced to prefer poverty to equality with the Negro, just so long was a labor movement in the South made impossible.” America’s original sin has thereby created an enormous hurdle to organizing black and white workers together. In order to do so, white workers must be convinced to give up one form of privilege—the one that’s offered by the myth of racial superiority—in order to struggle alongside black workers. Solidarity, as a result, has been a monumental challenge, and white racism has often won the day. American history nevertheless offers us a variety of examples of workers choosing solidarity, often due to the leadership and perseverance of black workers and thinkers.
In 1894, an alliance between the poor white Populists and poor black Republican agricultural workers won control of the North Carolina legislature and started making reforms, including the appointment of black officials. Four years later, a white-supremacist election returned the legislature to the “planter class”–backed Democrats. Two days after the election, mobs of Democrat-aligned white people roamed black neighborhoods, shooting, killing, and burning.
During the Great Depression, Communists went to Birmingham, Alabama, to organize for economic rights among the unemployed working class; they initially thought white workers would step up, but predominantly black workers did, and they ended up organizing black and white together. Making a national cause of the 1931 Scottsboro case, in which nine black teens were falsely accused of raping two white women in Alabama, the Communists formed a series of organizations. These included the Southern Negro Youth Congress, which prefigured the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, and a sharecroppers’ union that at its peak boasted 12,000 members, including white ones. As commissioner of public safety, Bull Connor waged war on them in the 1940s, and though he was able to crush the Alabama Communist Party, he couldn’t crush the groundwork it had laid for the civil-rights revolution against Jim Crow—including Rosa Parks’s early political action.
In the late 1960s, both Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Chicago Black Panther leader Fred Hampton assembled interracial coalitions of lower-income people. In 1967, when initiating his Poor People’s Campaign, King suggested that since “the economic question [is] fundamental for blacks and whites alike, ‘Power for Poor People’ would be much more appropriate than the slogan ‘Black Power.’” Hampton didn’t shy away from “Black Power,” but he paired it with other forms: “White Power to white people, Brown Power to brown people, Yellow Power to yellow people, Black Power to Black people, X power to those we left out and Panther Power to the Vanguard Party.” For their efforts, both were murdered, Hampton by the Chicago Police Department and the FBI, and King by a “working-class white” assassin that his family and associates maintain was a pawn in a conspiracy involving the Memphis Police Department, the FBI, and others.
In all of these cases, the racism that destroyed these efforts did not come from the white working class, but from affluent whites and law enforcement. To be sure, the white people who participated in these coalitions were not free from suspicion of and contempt for black people, but they were not so incorrigibly hateful as to be blind to the important points of unity they shared. These working-class whites were able to see working-class black people as teammates. This is key: People find ways to warm to those we perceive as teammates. Historian Judith Stein, for instance, cites the case of Jim Cole, who recalled of his time working in the CIO-organized Chicago yards: “I don’t care if the union don’t do another lick of work raisin’ our pay, or settling grievances about anything, I’ll always believe they done the greatest thing in the world gettin’ everybody who works in the yards together, and breakin’ up the hate and bad feelings that used to be held against the Negro.” “Egalitarian racial sentiment,” Stein concludes, “is often the consequence, not the cause, of unionization.”
Pathologizing the white working class as inherently bigoted serves two functions: It discourages working-class organizing across racial lines, and it provides white liberals with a convenient scapegoat who, being white, can’t charge racism. As Malcolm X cautioned, “If you aren’t careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
If you’re looking for Trump’s implacable support, Texas trailer parks and Kentucky cabins are the wrong places to find it. Fascism develops over hands of poker in furnished basements, over the grill by the backyard pool, over beers on the commuter-rail ride back from the ball game—and in police stations and squad cars. To overcome fascism, we will have to stop fetishizing the middle class and start uniting the working class. To that end, the Movement for Black Lives’ platform provides a blueprint for the emancipation not only of black people but the working class at large. With an emphasis on divesting from law enforcement and incarceration and investing in guaranteed human rights to income, housing, health care, education, and a healthy environment, the agenda provides a broad umbrella that can accommodate the visions driving several of our recent period’s social movements: Labor, environmental, peace, and immigration groups, among many others, have already endorsed it.
As the beneficiaries of systemic racism, white people have a special obligation to organize toward the realization of this program, and to acknowledge that black people’s reluctance to work with those who hold bigoted attitudes is understandable and that the need for independent black organizing is pressing. Still, the only political force capable of advancing the Movement for Black Lives’ agenda will be rooted in the shared interests of the working class. The failure to follow the lead of Fred Hampton and Martin Luther King and engage working-class white people in the fight for socialism and black liberation will only continue to undermine that struggle and sacrifice those same people to the cul-de-sac brownshirts and the revolting demagogue at their helm.
Editor’s note: An earlier version of this piece misidentified the location of Daily Kos’s office. Though the office was once in Berkeley, it is now in Oakland. The text has been corrected.
By Nicholas Carnes and Noam Lupu June 5, 2017
Media coverage of the 2016 election often emphasized Donald Trump’s appeal to the working class. The Atlantic said that “the billionaire developer is building a blue-collar foundation.” The Associated Press wondered what “Trump’s success in attracting white, working-class voters” would mean for his general election strategy. On Nov. 9, the New York Times front-page article about Trump’s victory characterized it as “a decisive demonstration of power by a largely overlooked coalition of mostly blue-collar white and working-class voters.”
There’s just one problem: this account is wrong. Trump voters were not mostly working-class people.
The misrepresentation of Trump’s working-class support began in the primaries. In a widely read March 2016 piece, the writer Thomas Frank, for instance, argued at length that “working-class white people … make up the bulk of Trump’s fan base.” Many journalists found colorful examples of working-class Trump supporters at early campaign rallies. But were those anecdotes an accurate representation of the emerging Trump coalition?
There were good reasons to be skeptical. For one, most 2016 polls didn’t include information about how the people surveyed earned a living, that is, their occupations — the preferred measure of social class among scholars. When journalists wrote that Trump was appealing to working-class voters, they didn’t really know whether Trump voters were construction workers or CEOs.
Moreover, according to what is arguably the next-best measure of class, household income, Trump supporters didn’t look overwhelmingly “working class” during the primaries. To the contrary, many polls showed that Trump supporters were mostly affluent Republicans. For example, a March 2016 NBC survey that we analyzed showed that only a third of Trump supporters had household incomes at or below the national median of about $50,000. Another third made $50,000 to $100,000, and another third made $100,000 or more and that was true even when we limited the analysis to only non-Hispanic whites. If being working class means being in the bottom half of the income distribution, the vast majority of Trump supporters during the primaries were not working class.
But what about education? Many pundits noticed early on that Trump’s supporters were mostly people without college degrees. There were two problems with this line of reasoning, however. First, not having a college degree isn’t a guarantee that someone belongs in the working class (think Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg). And, second, although more than 70 percent of Trump supporters didn’t have college degrees, when we looked at the NBC polling data, we noticed something the pundits left out: during the primaries, about 70 percent of all Republicans didn’t have college degrees, close to the national average (71 percent according to the 2013 Census). Far from being a magnet for the less educated, Trump seemed to have about as many people without college degrees in his camp as we would expect any successful Republican candidate to have.
What about the general election? A few weeks ago, the American National Election Study — the longest-running election survey in the United States — released its 2016 survey data. And it showed that in November 2016, the Trump coalition looked a lot like it did during the primaries. Among people who said they voted for Trump in the general election, 35 percent had household incomes under $50,000 per year (the figure was also 35 percent among non-Hispanic whites), almost exactly the percentage in NBC’s March 2016 survey. Trump’s voters weren’t overwhelmingly poor. In the general election, like the primary, about two thirds of Trump supporters came from the better-off half of the economy.
But, again, what about education? Many analysts have argued that the partisan divide between more and less educated people is bigger than ever. During the general election, 69 percent of Trump voters in the election study didn’t have college degrees. Isn’t that evidence that the working class made up most of Trump’s base? The truth is more complicated: many of the voters without college educations who supported Trump were relatively affluent. The graph below breaks down white non-Hispanic voters by income and education. Among people making under the median household income of $50,000, there was a 15 to 20 percentage-point difference in Trump support between those with a college degree and those without. But the same gap was present — and actually larger — among Americans making more than $50,000 and $100,000 annually. To look at it another way, among white people without college degrees who voted for Trump, nearly 60 percent were in the top half of the income distribution. In fact, one in five white Trump voters without a college degree had a household income over $100,000.
Observers have often used the education gap to conjure images of poor people flocking to Trump, but the truth is, many of the people without college degrees who voted for Trump were from middle- and high-income households. That’s the basic problem with using education to measure the working class. In short, the narrative that attributes Trump’s victory to a “coalition of mostly blue-collar white and working-class voters” just doesn’t square with the 2016 election data. According to the election study, white non-Hispanic voters without college degrees making below the median household income made up only 25 percent of Trump voters. That’s a far cry from the working-class-fueled victory many journalists have imagined.
A recent National Review article about Trump’s alleged support among the working class bordered on a call to arms against the less fortunate, saying that, “The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin” and that “the truth about these dysfunctional downscale communities is that they deserve to die.” This kind of stereotyping and scapegoating is a dismaying consequence of the narrative that working-class Americans swept Trump into the White House. It’s time to let go of that narrative. What deserves to die isn’t America’s working-class communities. It’s the myth that they’re the reason Trump was elected.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments. It is also sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent's point. The term was popularized in United States by Mark Twain (among others).
The fact is that simple logic and a basic understanding of human behavior, would clearly indicate that a White person motivated to vote for Barack Obama, would never vote for the Racist, Boorish, Misogynist, Fascist, Donald Trump, under ANY circumstance.
Those proposing this Albinos from Obama to Trump nonsense have an agenda that certainly includes keeping the people that they cover relevant, and therefore, keeping THEMSELVES relevant and employed.
In the case of Michael Moore: Whites like him always seem to have trouble accepting just how degenerate their fellow Whites can be. Which is strange when you consider the well documented atrocities Germans committed against Jews, or Europeans in general, committed against Africans, in Africa. Yet in the U.S. they look for reasons and excuses for their brethren's deviant behavior, as if degenerate American Albinos are somehow different, and less degenerate, than European Albinos. Strangely forgetting that American Albinos are simply European Albinos who migrated to the Americas. Then again, perhaps it's because they see so much of themselves in the degenerates: they fear that in different circumstance, they too might be degenerates, so they seek to excuse them.
But speaking to their own complicity, they never examine the "True" causes of Slavery and Racism. They try to act like it was just a Wrong, but "Arbitrary" choice on the part of the Southern Slaver and Hater. But nothing could be further from the truth. American Slavery was simply a practical solution to an intractable problem. i.e. How can Un-Melaninated Albinos master and control lands that they cannot work themselves? Note the following quote:
Title: America as a Land of Opportunity
Author: Benjamin FranklinYear: 1751
why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.
Albinos in the North didn't have the problem, the relatively low UV strength of the Sunlight in the North allowed them to HIRE other Albinos to work their land. But in the South, all Albinos were in the same boat: work the land without sufficient clothing, and you die! But then again, work the land WITH sufficient clothing, and the HEAT will kill you! The only "Profitable" solution: Enslave Melaninated Humans to do your work for you. Albinos being creatures fond of the pretense of Pride, find it difficult to admit that their inability to do outside work in the Sun, was the "Real" reason for their American institution of Slavery, and the Self-Shamed, self-defense Racism that it spawned.
As a related matter: Albinos STILL won't admit their limitations as in the lands that they can safely settle.
Israel, Australia, and New Zealand have the worlds highest rates of "Skin Cancer".
Unlike the White Turks who adopted clothing which covered them from Head to Toe in order to survive in lands where they don't belong. The Albinos of Israel, Australia, and New Zealand have foolishly (Delusionally?) considered themselves Sun people, and have embraced the Sun - to their own detriment.
By-the-way Michael Moore, don't fall for the (they/we are some good people) argument offered by "They" and Donald Trump. Good people, much less lovers of the Constitution, Democracy, and the United States: would NEVER elect a Boob, an Idiot, a total Incompetent, like Donald Trump, President of the United States. Donald Trump may well stumble the United States into a Nuclear War! And true to form, the fool and incompetent Donald Trump has surrounded himself with OTHER fools and incompetents, who also think of Nuclear War as something that should be allowed to happen. No Michael, "Good People", "Good Americans" care about the the quality of people governing the Nation. They want intelligent, reasonable and reasoning people in government. People who will solve problems, not a bunch of goobers who are merely the lackeys of the rich.
The truth of this is self evident, those people have proven to you that they will kill you in order to maintain their delusion of Racial superiority, why do you suppose "THEY" started the Civil War? Certainly not so they could keep Slaves - less than 1 in 20 Southern Albinos owned Slaves - that was the purview of the "Planter class"!
But what those "Good People" were really good at was "LYNCHING" innocent Black citizens of the United States. A new report titled “Lynching in America: Confronting the Legacy of Racial Terror” Researchers said they determined that 3,959 black people were killed in “racial terror lynching's” in a dozen Southern states between 1877 and 1950. The new number includes 700 people who were not named in previous works seeking to comprehensively document the toll, the authors wrote. Some of those previous studies were conducted at a time when lynching was still an ongoing phenomenon.
These lynching's were NOT done in secret: the lynching's themselves drew large crowds. James Cameron, who survived being lynched as a teenager and later founded America’s Black Holocaust Museum in Milwaukee, said he remembered seeing 2,000 white people gathered at his lynching, some with their children.
All of these strange goings-on are indicators of just how much having a Black President shook the fantasy world of U.S. Rabble Albinos. Now these people have never been American Patriots (notwithstanding) their phony Flag waving and false claims of love and fidelity to the country. These people were once Democrats and now they are Republicans, but one thing has remained constant: their willingness to fight against, and destroy, the United States in furtherance of their Albino fears and interests. That's what they did over 150 years ago when they fired on, and "Took", the American fort Sumter, at Charleston, South Carolina: April 12–13, 1861.
Their modern willingness to betray the United States is demonstrated by their embrace of Russia's efforts to subvert the United States Voting and Election systems by hacking into the computer systems of several Democratic officials in support of the Trump Candidacy.
DNC Chair Donna Brazile urged RNC (Republican National Committee) Chair Reince Priebus, twice in private and once in a letter, to join her in condemning Russia’s theft of DNC emails after they were posted online and cost Brazile’s predecessor, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, her job, according to the New York Times. Each time, Priebus declined to take her up on the offer, the paper noted. A top Democratic official, meanwhile, told The Huffington Post that Brazile pressed Priebus at two debates to attend a joint briefing on Russia’s interference. “They never joined us for a briefing,” the official said, though he cautioned that Priebus, who did publicly criticize the DNC hack, may have decided to be briefed separately. The RNC did not return a request for comment. Priebus is now Trump’s incoming chief of staff.
The Washington Post: RIGA, Latvia — As the United States grapples with the implications of Kremlin interference in American politics, European countries are deploying a variety of bold tactics and tools to expose Russian attempts to sway voters and weaken European unity.
Four dozen officials and researchers interviewed recently sounded uniformly more confident about the results of their efforts to counter Russian influence than officials grappling with it in the United States, which one European cyber-official described as “like watching ‘House of Cards.”
Of course this type of Racism and subverting of Democracy and Democratic institutions is nothing new to the Republican Albino Rabble. In 1982 they entered into a consent decree which bars the Republican National Committee and it’s agents from voter intimidation tactics and discrimination against minorities.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE;
NEW JERSEY DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE;
VIRGINIA L. FEGGINS; LYNETTE MONROE
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE;
NEW JERSEY REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE;
ALEX HURTADO; RONALD C. KAUFMAN; JOHN
Republican National Committee,
1981 Lawsuit and Consent Decree
During the 1981 New Jersey gubernatorial election,
the DNC, the New Jersey Democratic State Committee
(“DSC”), Virginia L.
Peggins, and Lynette Monroe brought
an action against the RNC, the New Jersey Republican State
Committee (“RSC”), John A. Kelly, Ronald Kaufman, and
Alleging that the RNC and RSC targeted
minority voters in an effort to intimidate them in violation of
the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VRA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971,
1973, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the
Constitution of the United States. The RNC allegedly created
a voter challenge list by mailing sample ballots to individuals
in precincts with a high percentage of racial or ethnic
minority registered voters and, then, including individuals
whose postcards were returned as undeliverable on a list of
voters to challenge at the polls. The RNC also allegedly
enlisted the help of off
-duty sheriffs and police officers to
intimidate voters by standing at polling places in minority
precincts during voting with “National Ballot Security Task
Force” armbands. Some of the officers allegedly wore
firearms in a visible manner.
To settle the lawsuit, the RNC and RSC entered into
the Consent Decree.
But reality is not what they thought it would be.
Ever since Nixon’s "Southern Strategy" which encouraged the Albino Rabble to leave the Democratic Party and join the Republican Party: and their subsequent "taking over" of said Republican Party. The Rabble have told us that they are the "Good People" the "Common Sense people", and were we all to follow them and their values, we would all be better off. They said that we need to put them in power.
Well of course sensible Blacks have always recognized these people for the ignorant, hate filled racists that they have always been. Even suburban Albinos initially looked at their unforgiving and sometimes violent Abortion stance, their obvious racism, and their obvious ignorance, and rejected their calls for Albino unity. But the election of Barack Obama as president, so shook the foundations of the Albino Rabble: that the educated suburban Albino Rabble decided to join forces with the Southern and Rural Albinos, to prevent the election of another Black president.
And so to realize their dream of finally having total power in the United States, all of the various Albino Rabble forces colluded to deny Blacks the right to vote by every voter suppression method they could think of: from purging Blacks from voter rolls, to voter I.D. laws; knowing that many Blacks don't have photo IDs, to Voter intimidation at the poll sites, with armed off-duty sheriffs and Police acting in threatening ways.
In 2014, their efforts beared fruit and they took control of the lower house of the United States Congress. In 2016, they not only took the U.S. Senate, but they also took the U.S. Presidency. Today the Albino Rabble control every facet of U.S. government.
The result: Governmental Paralysis - the government cannot function in unison and no bills can be passed. The United States is now the laughing stock of the world, its president is considered to be an idiot World-Wide: and everyone worries that the U.S. president will start a Nuclear War with North Korea. Rashes of mass murder, where "Gun Lovers" amass hordes of weapons, and then kill as many civilians as they can. Even stranger: it is NOT normal people resisting the Albino Rabble, its members of the Rabble. Apparently even some of them are appalled at the disasters they bring.
It took a long time, but others have finally realized that White Evangelicals and the so-called "Christian Right" were nothing but White Racists and White Supremacists HIDING behind Christianity.
Donald J. Trump is the antithesis of a true follower of Christ. His xenophobic assault against Muslims, racist remarks about Mexicans, troubled history with women and sympathy for neo-Nazis make him remarkably unqualified to represent God’s teachings.
He has rarely—if ever, really—mentioned faith as an essential force in his life, though, as a presidential candidate and now president, he has been trumpeted by leading white evangelicals like Jerry Falwell Jr. as their “dream president.” Falwell’s exuberance is warranted. Eighty-one percent of evangelicals voted for Trump in 2016 and have arguably become his most ardent supporters. They have one of their own in the Oval Office, but not in the way you’d think. See, Trump doesn’t give a damn about the Bible or Jesus. He’s pimping the gospel, just as he pimped racially insecure “working class” white men and women into voting for him in exchange for an America that doesn’t threaten their whiteness.
Closing the borders and embracing isolationism means more economic prosperity for Americans (read: white people) struggling with economic anxiety, in Trump’s logic. Evoking images of “bad hombres” and “black-on-black crime” in Chicago also enflamed white people’s fears and, ultimately, secured their votes. Indeed, racism and God are the perfect cocktail for political assent. Trump realized early on that white evangelicals generally share a lot of his sexist, anti-Muslim and anti-black views. Historically, Christianity has often been used to exact violence against anything and anyone that challenges white supremacy.
Anthea Butler, a religious scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote in The Guardian that Trump’s blatant racism against minorities signals to white evangelicals that he embraces their homogenized view of America. “By othering these groups, Trump allows evangelicals to persist in their belief that white Anglo-saxon protestantism, is the default for true American Christianity and is best suited to lead America as a ‘Christian Nation,’” she wrote.
If you do not believe that Christianity has often been peddled as white supremacist doctrine, you know very little about how it functions in white, mainstream society. In a piece for the Washington Post, the Rev. William J. Barber II details the racist history of Southern white evangelicalism and how, ultimately, white Christians were taught to build a wall between their faith and their politics, which, of course, relieved them of their obligation to the biblical pursuit of social justice.
This is the genesis of how mainstream Christianity came to be in America and why it has rallied around Trump. It has nothing to do with the word. Jesus was a radical, an activist who spoke truth to power. He protected the poor, never shamed the disadvantaged and rebuked the abuse of power. If there ever was an anti-colonial force on this earth, it was Jesus. But white evangelicals have subverted his words to attack the poor and disenfranchise the vulnerable, all in an effort to protect their white male homogeneity.
In this respect, not only is Trump a practicing Christian, but he is arguably the church of white supremacy’s most active member. One of his first tithes came in 1989 when he spent $85,000 on front-page ads in major New York City newspapers blasting five black and Latino boys as “muggers and murderers” after they were accused of raping a white woman in Central Park. (The city of New York eventually paid the men a settlement of $40 million after they were exonerated.)
In a follow-up interview with Larry King that same year, Trump said America needed to “bring back the police,” a clear nod to white people nationwide that he understood how law enforcement symbolizes the guardianship of whiteness. In 2017 he amplified this symbolism when he encouraged police brutality on national television. Trump’s white evangelicals ignore this because they believe it maintains the white homogeneous America that Trump vows to maintain and that God intended.
Molly Worthen explains in The Atlantic that the white evangelical movement was born out of America’s revolutionary period, when there were deep suspicions of an encroaching government that put the nation in danger of losing its homogeneity. To counter this, white Christians had no issues aligning themselves with nonbelieving politicians who shared their fears. There is another quality that Trump shares with many white evangelicals, as Worthen notes: that of the dictatorial know-it-all who professes to return America to the place where whiteness can rule with abandon:
To the majority of Americans—those who did not vote for him—Trump has all the allure of the boorish boss who takes too many liberties at the staff Christmas party. But his authoritarian machismo is right in step with a long evangelical tradition of pastor-overlords who anoint themselves with the power to make their own rules—and, in the event of their own occasional moral lapses, assure their followers that God always forgives. This explains why many white people of faith were so fast to forgive Trump for his “grab ’em by the pussy” remarks. As long as Trump is resurrecting “God’s country,” his sexism gets a pass. And so does his racism.
We saw white, mainstream Christianity in action after Charlottesville, Va. After sympathizing with Nazis after a white nationalist was charged with running over a woman and killing her during the protests, Trump’s spiritual adviser Paula White insisted that Trump “100 percent is a Christian” and “not a racist.” Megachurch pastor Robert Jeffress dismissed accusations of Trump being racist after his “both sides” comments, saying, “If we’re going to denounce some racism, we ought to denounce all racism, and I believe that was the point the president was making.”
Mainstream Christianity is acting as an enthusiastic cheerleader of Trump’s white supremacist agenda. Of course, this is not the true gospel as Jesus wanted us to practice it. This is a bunch of white men and women co-opting faith and evangelizing millions of white Americans behind the false narrative that God’s word mirrors those of Trump. And it is working. Our white brothers and sisters, fooled by Trump’s false claims that their economic problems are the fault of the immigrant, have accepted the perverted gospel that positions their whiteness over the word of God.
That is how powerful white Christian supremacy is. It can colonize nations, leaving ruin in its wake. And it can colonize faith to the point where Christian leaders use it as a means to justify and ignore the most horrific abuses against humanity without batting an eye. But, most important for the white evangelical who fears that his existence is losing value, white Christian supremacy elected Donald J. Trump. Their God on earth. For many Americans, my words may come as a shock. But for those of us who understand how faith has been used to justify the rape, pillaging and murder of the disenfranchised, Trump’s rise as a white-evangelical darling is just another reminder of how the teachings of Jesus have so often been twisted to echo the words of Satan.
Terry Newell, Contributor President, Leadership for a Responsible Society
Updated Apr 13, 2017
|Year||Unemployment||GDP growth||Inflation||National Debt (Billions)||Debt to GDP Ratio||EVENT|
Hoover's tax hikes
FDR's New Deal
Depression eased thanks to New Deal.
According to the Final Vote Update; published Jan. 2017:
[Hillary Clinton 2016 = 65,844,954], [Donald Trump in 2016 = just 62,979,879],
Remembering that Trump LOST the popular vote but WON the Presidential election through the "Electoral College".
[Total U.S. Population = 245,502,000] [Total Citizen Population: (This means actual number of U.S. citizens) = 224,059,000].
Total Citizen Population reported registered = 157,596,000 - 70.3%| Reported voted = 61.4%
Whites = 177,865,000 - total Reported registered = 127,463,000 - 71.7%| Reported voted = 62.9%
Blacks = 28,808.000 - total Reported registered = 19,984,000 - 69.4%| Reported voted = 59.4%
Hispanic = 26,662,000 - total Reported registered = 15,267,000 - 57.3%| Reported voted = 47.6%
By SHANE GOLDMACHER 10/19/2016
The 2016 campaign may have reached dispiriting new lows, but voter registration in America has soared to new heights as 200 million people are now registered to vote for the first time in U.S. history.
The milestone is a sign of the aggressive voter registration efforts ahead of Nov. 8 and a symptom of the fast-growing and demographically shifting electorate that is expected to redound to the benefit of the Democratic Party in the coming years.
There is no current national database of voter registration because each state independently runs its own election. But TargetSmart, a Democratic political data firm, told POLITICO that the country passed the 200 million threshold in recent days as North Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada and New York reported new voter numbers.
Tom Bonier, CEO of TargetSmart, said national registration now stands at 200,081,377 voters. The figure means more than 50 million new people have registered to vote in the past eight years. Only 146.3 million were registered as recently as 2008, when then-Sen. Barack Obama first won the White House — a remarkable 33 percent surge in the electorate during a single presidency. The last time a Clinton was on the presidential ballot 20 years ago, the electorate was 127.6 million people. The wave of new voters this year has dramatically favored the Democratic Party, according to TargetSmart, which analyzed the expected party preferences of the new registrants in 15 of the first- and second-tier presidential battlegrounds.
Overall, TargetSmart found that 42.6 percent of the new voters registered this year lean Democratic, and only 29 percent lean Republican (28.4 percent lean independent). Worse for the GOP, registration trended more Democratic in every single battleground state, from a small margin in Georgia (4.3 percentage points) to massive leads in diversifying states like Colorado (29.3 points), Nevada (20.4 points) and North Carolina (9.2 points). And since June 1, the trend has been even more stark. In Virginia, TargetSmart’s data show only 11.7 percent of new registrants lean Republican — versus nearly 50 percent expected to lean Democratic. Across all 15 battlegrounds, the Democratic advantage is nearly 22 percentage points since June 1. “As we cross the threshold of 200 million registered voters for the first time, there are signs of an ever diversifying electorate, and one that is more favorable to Democratic candidates,” Bonier said.
In a study earlier this year, the Pew Research Center said that the 2016 electorate would be the “most racially and ethnically diverse ever,” forecasting 31 percent of the vote would come from ethnic minorities, up from 29 percent in 2012. “It remains to be seen how different demographics perform proportionally but we are very encouraged by the early signs that we have seen,” Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook told reporters this week. Clinton is pushing aggressively for increased turnout among black, Asian-American and Hispanic voters. The electorate has been growing by leaps in recent years, with Hispanic population growth behind much of the surge. Two decades ago, in 1996, there were not even 200 million people of voting-age population in the United States, let alone registered voters. The Clinton campaign has been preparing for and predicting record-setting turnout this fall even amid widespread frustration about the tenor of the campaign. “We do expect more voters to turnout in this election than any in our history,” Mook told reporters this week. Previously, the biggest turnout in presidential election history came in 2008, when 131.4 million people voted (turnout dipped slightly to 129.2 million in 2012). By percentage, however, the share of eligible Americans who actually complete ballots is not expected to be anywhere near a record. It has been nearly a half-century since 60 percent of voting-age adults voted. That last happened in 1968.
People who voted for Donald Trump = 62,979,879. They say 87% of that number were WHITE. Therefore 54,792,494 were WHITE VOTERS, and 8,187,383 were "OTHER." The 2016 Presidential election was the most polarizing in history. Gone was any talk about coming together, almost ALL Whites voted for Donald Trump IN MASS! Gone was the lie that White Suburban Women were more "Racially Tolerant": because like White men, they voted for Trump in Mass! In fact, except for some Urban Whites, and the White intelligentsia: just about EVERY White voter in the United States voted for Donald Trump: yet they could only muster 62,979,879 votes. Now if we extrapolate that number out, that means that 72,390,665 Whites voted in the 2016 Presidential election.
Voter suppression is a strategy to influence the outcome of an election by discouraging or preventing people from voting. In 2013, NEW discriminatory voter ID laws arose following the Supreme Court's decision to strike down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which some argue amounted to voter suppression against African-Americans. And when all else fails, the Albinos will use BRUTE FORCE!
In 2001, the white mayor and the all-white Board of Aldermen for the small town of Kilmichael, Mississippi attempted to cancel an election shortly after black citizens became a majority of the registered voters. DOJ objected, finding the cancelation was designed to weaken African Americans’ voting strength. The town refused to reschedule the election until DOJ required it to hold one in 2003, when the town’s first African-American mayor and three African-American aldermen were elected. So from experience, we know that because of voter suppression by Albinos, and voter apathy among poor Blacks, Black voter turnout percentages will be much LOWER than White turnout percentages.
Point being...if 62,979,879 are 87% of the total 72,390,665 White votes cast in the 2016 election. Then what does Hillary Clintons 65,844,954 votes represent? We know that only 9,410,786 of them were WHITE votes. That means that 56,434,168 were Black, Hispanic, and Asian. The Asian population is small and Hispanic participation is even less than Blacks. That means that the great majority of those 56,434,168 voters were Black. And if less than 50% of ELEGIBLE Black voters actually Vote, that means that we are dealing with a probable Black electorate of perhaps 80,000,000 (you will remember that early on: immediately after the election, we calculated a Black electorate of approx. 75 million). And if we use THEIR number of 69% of Blacks are registered to vote (No way it’s that high), that means that we have a Black adult population of 115,942,028 in the United States.
As a reminder The U.S. Census says there are 177,865,000 Whites, 26,662,000 Hispanics, and 28,808.000 Blacks in the United States. Yet by using REAL numbers, we find that there are more than 115,942,028 Black adults in the United States. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the numbers say that even though Whites are a “Plurality” in the United States, they are certainly NOT the Majority of the population in the United States. If these numbers surprise you, then please go to the "Special Subject and in-house videos" page, and select the video titled "Naive - Thinking that Whites would tell you the truth".
Immediately after Hillary Clinton's 2016 defeat, certain supposedly Liberal sources attributed her defeat to disaffected White Workers, and White suburban women, who after voting two times for Obama, changed sides and voted for Donald Trump for economic concerns. On the face of it, this was of course a ridiculous supposition, someone who voted for the enlightened leadership of Barack Obama would never Vote for a Racist Buffoon like Donald Trump for ANY reason.
Black pundits knew that Obama's victories were based on Black voter turnout: (Did you really think the Albinos would tell you the TRUE Black population)? Obama knew, but wisely wouldn't say outright. Barack Obama - Dec. 2016: I'm 'confident' I could have won a third term as president. In a wide-ranging interview with former aide David Axelrod, the outgoing president expressed his belief that he could have won re-election in 2016, based on his view that most Americans still subscribed to his progressive vision and ideals.
So it seemed logical that the (not wildly popular among Blacks) Hillary Clinton, lost because many Blacks stayed home. And that's what Black pundits said on MSNBC programs: and there they were always ignored. Not once was there a conversation on any station, challenging this false (Albino people based analysis) of the 2016 Presidential election. And then soon, the Black pundits who tried to tell the truth about the 2016 election were gone, shut out completely from the conversations on American television. So that nowhere was there a truthful analysis of the 2016 election.
But luckily, just because Albino media moguls want to hide a truth, doesn't mean that the truth will be completely hidden. As it turns out, the scientists at Pew Research Center had been busy trying to resolve those same questions, as to why Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election. Here is what they found:
A record 137.5 million Americans voted in the 2016 presidential election, according to new data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Overall voter turnout – defined as the share of adult U.S. citizens who cast ballots – was 61.4% in 2016, a share similar to 2012 but below the 63.6% who say they voted in 2008. A number of long-standing trends in presidential elections either reversed or stalled in 2016, as black voter turnout decreased, white turnout increased and the nonwhite share of the U.S. electorate remained flat since the 2012 election. Here are some key takeaways from the Census Bureau’s report, the data source with the most comprehensive demographic and statistical portrait of U.S. voters. (The same source which has lied to Black people about their numbers - consider the source).
As a reminder; that study was released over a year ago, it proved that the Black pundits were correct in their analysis of the 2016 election results. Yet Albino media ignored it, and them, and continues to do so. Today, with the truth-tellers banished from Albino media, and the Mid-term elections looming, these supposedly Liberal Albino sources are once again wringing their hands and asking: WHAT CAN DEMOCRATS DO TO WIN BACK WHITE WORKING CLASS VOTERS???
As the Pew Research study, and the election results from the Wikipedia table below clearly show,
THERE HAS BEEN NO CHANGE IN TOTAL DEMOCRATIC VOTERS!
Except for disaffected Black Voters of 2008, who disappointed that Obama did not change their lives, abandoned him in 2012
As these totals clearly show 3,583,721 Blacks left Obama in 2012 because of disappointment that he did not lift them up by decree. Strangely/Ironically, these mostly unsophisticated Black Voters have the same concept of the Presidency as the Buffoon Trump: that is the President is all-powerful, and can do whatever he pleases - which is of course not true.
Between Obama's 2012 election and Hillary Clinton's 2016 DEFEAT: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF 62,281 DEMOCRATIC VOTES! - - THAT IS THE SAME AS NO CHANGE IN DEMOCRATIC VOTES!!!
Hillary Clinton actually got 4.5% (2,868,686) MORE votes than Donald Trump. But the reason Trump is President and Clinton is not: is because Hillary Clinton carelessly or incompetently, neglected to acquire the necessary number of "Electoral College" votes. You see, regardless of the lies, the United States is NOT a "True" Democracy. The "Electoral College" votes, not the popular vote, determines the outcome of a Presidential Election.
Though Hillary Clinton did get 2,868,686 MORE votes than Donald Trump: the sight of a Black President did have an effect, it made racist Albinos go crazy. Thus in 2016 they came out in unprecedented numbers, numbers never seen before: 2,051,324 more Albino voters came out for trump in 2016 than had ever voted before. The biggest change was 454,439 in Florida, 179,568 in Ohio, 290,299 in Pennsylvania, 112,071 in Missouri, 516,744 in Nebraska. Even states Like New York and New Jersey, saw an increase in Racist Albino voters.
Thus the answer may be as obvious as the color on the back of your hand: MSNBC, like ALL major media, is owned by RICH Albinos. According to the New York Times, for every $100 in white family wealth, black families hold just $5.04. That means that Albinos own about 95% of the United States of America. Obama's Presidency proves that the determining factor in national Elections, and many State Elections, is BLACK VOTER TURNOUT!
By Niraj Chokshi - April 24, 2018
The calculus of the rich Albino media owners is simple: which group is likely to maintain me in my high positions and exorbitant wealth. My fellow racist Albinos, or Blacks and Civilized Albinos? Luckily, many Black politicians have figured it out too, so contrary to what Albinos are counseling them: i.e. Go to the Albino Rabble, kiss their Albino ass, and beg them to vote for you. Many Blacks are eschewing that, and instead, trying to encourage Black participation in elections. Obama won with it, why can't they?
Numbers to ponder
From the United States Census:
Here at Realhistoryww we make much of our adherence to the Scientific Method. That fidelity continues with our efforts to glean the true Black population of the United States. The numbers we arrived at by estimating population by Obama Voting numbers seem sound, but because they are not totally based on verifiable numbers, the more support we can offer, the stronger our conclusions.
In this proof, we use the mathematical method of extrapolation: that is to extend the application of (a method or conclusion, especially one based on statistics) to an unknown situation by assuming that existing trends will continue.
In this case, we use a chart of the incontrovertible fact that Albinos are many times more likely to commit suicide than Blacks, (something to do with lack of melanin?): and the incontrovertible fact that Washington D.C. (District of Columbia) is the area with the largest ratio of Blacks to Albinos, to extrapolate an inverse chart showing states with large, possibly majority Black populations by virtue of their very LOW suicide rates.
1. Montana — 26
2. Alaska — 25.4
3. Wyoming — 25.2
4. New Mexico — 22.5
5. Utah — 21.8
6. Nevada — 21.4
7. Idaho — 21.3
8. Oklahoma — 20.9
9. Colorado — 20.5
9. South Dakota — 20.5
11. West Virginia — 19.5
12. North Dakota — 19
13. Missouri — 18.3
14. Arkansas — 18.2
15. Kansas — 17.9
16. Oregon — 17.8
17. Arizona — 17.6
18. New Hampshire — 17.3
18. Vermont — 17.3
20. Kentucky — 16.8
21. Tennessee — 16.3
22. Maine — 15.7
22. South Carolina — 15.7
24. Alabama — 15.6
25. Indiana — 15.4
26. Washington — 14.8
27. Pennsylvania — 14.7
28. Wisconsin — 14.6
29. Iowa — 14.5
30. Louisiana — 14.1
30. Ohio — 14.1
32. Florida — 13.9
33. Georgia — 13.3
33. Michigan — 13.3
35. Minnesota — 13.2
35. Virginia — 13.2
37. Nebraska — 13
37. North Carolina — 13
39. Mississippi — 12.7
40. Texas — 12.6
41. Hawaii — 12
42. Delaware — 11.5
43. Rhode Island — 11.1
44. Illinois — 10.7
45. California — 10.5
46. Connecticut — 10
47. Maryland — 9.3
48. Massachusetts — 8.7
49. New York — 8.1
50. New Jersey — 7.2
51. District of Columbia — 5.1
|Click for Realhistoryww Home Page|