In response, both strategically and Ideologically, the Clinton campaign followed decades of liberal wisdom. Running to the political center, they courted independents and moderate Republicans who opposed a vulgar, chauvinistic, and candidate. Rather than “un-presidential” contest this faux-populism with support substantive ideals, they ran a campaign their for against opponents. They offered a fair-minded and sober against bigotry” that “deplorable” “campaign emphasized a need for and kindness” in an already great America. Empirically, this “love strategy is confirmed in the content of their political advertising, 76% of which contained character attacks and only 9% of which contained reference to jobs, social welfare, and/or the economy. The fact that the and were among the most important ‘economy’ ‘jobs’ issue(s), if not most important, in the 2016 election a lingering effect of the Great the – Recession lends considerable weight to the hypothesis that economic anxiety significantly – impacted vote choice. (Clinton ran to the right of Trump on economic issues.) Combined with the clear import of identity politics, there is considerable evidence that America is has entered another populist phase, one with visible (white) nationalist characteristics, and a somewhat unusual authoritarian bent. The Midwestern swing states, on which the presidential election once again hinged in 2016, reveals populism’s impact. In short, the decades-long collapse of manufacturing and an influx of Latino immigration in Midwestern Belt” states appears to have had a statistically “Rust significant impact on the rejection of Clinton. At the heart of this were working- and middle- class white voters in the five rust belt states won by Trump Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, – Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin: therein, the Republican candidate picked up 450,000 (or, 4.9 percent) more voters’ and 335,000 (or, 10.6 percent) more class voters’ than in ‘white ‘working 2012 and the Democratic candidate picked up 950,000 (or, 13 percent) fewer (including 770,000
In response, both strategically and Ideologically, the Clinton campaign followed decades of liberal wisdom. Running to the political center, they courted independents and moderate Republicans who opposed a vulgar, chauvinistic, and “un-presidential” candidate. Rather than contest this faux-populism with support for substantive ideals, they ran a campaign against their “deplorable” opponents. They offered a fair-minded and sober “campaign against bigotry” that emphasized a need for “love and kindness” in an already great America. Empirically, this strategy is confirmed in the content of their political advertising, 76% of which contained character attacks and only 9% of which contained reference to jobs, social welfare, and/or the economy. The fact that the ‘economy’ and ‘jobs’ were among the most important issue(s), if not the most important, in the 2016 election – a lingering effect of the Great Recession – lends considerable weight to the hypothesis that economic anxiety significantly impacted vote choice. (Clinton ran to the right of Trump on economic issues.) Combined with the clear import of identity politics, there is considerable evidence that America is has entered another populist phase, one with visible (white) nationalist characteristics, and a somewhat unusual authoritarian bent. The Midwestern swing states, on which the presidential election once again hinged in 2016, reveals populism’s impact. In short, the decades-long collapse of manufacturing and an influx of Latino immigration in Midwestern “Rust Belt” states appears to have had a statistically significant impact on the rejection of Clinton. At the heart of this were working- and middle- class white voters in the five rust belt states won by Trump – Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin: therein, the Republican candidate picked up 450,000 (or, 4.9 percent) more ‘white voters’ and 335,000 (or, 10.6 percent) more ‘working class voters’ than in 2012 and the Democratic candidate picked up 950,000 (or, 13 percent) fewer (including 770,000
Andrew%20Flint%20-%20Trump%20is%20Not%20the%20Excpetion,%20He's%20the%20Rule.docx