Trump is riding the same wave that's carrying all kinds of fringe politicians to electoral success all over the western world. Basically, there have been a very large number of losers from globalisation and mass immigration. For the most part these can be categorised as the white working class. They've seen a systematic assault on their standard of living while at the same time being subjected to a barrage of racism/bigotry allegations when they tried to raise their objections to the new normal, and as a result they feel that nobody is speaking for them. The financial crash of 2008 brought these issues to a head but nothing has improved in the meantime for these people, so they're beginning to be receptive to simplistic arguments from populist politicians. Belittling them, which has been the stock response from our media and political elites, hasn't really worked, it's just served to make them more angry. Cynically attempting to manipulate their anger has had some limited success (see the Tea Party phenomenon), but ultimately this has also backfired when it became obvious that nothing was actually being done to advance their interests. The end result is Donald Trump.

Ultimately I think we're seeing a backlash against the liberal free-trade agenda which has dominated our politics for the last 30 years. Both of the main parties in the US are poorly positioned to benefit from this since both are in it up their necks. I daresay the establishment in the form of Hillary will ultimately prevail, but this is just the beginning.

Good analysis, Sass. Unless there are reforms to off-set the downward pressure on wages for many in the West due to money and companies being able to go to countries paying far lower wages with a corresponding increase in returns for those who work in the upper-echelons of multi-national companies, or work in the financial world that manages capital, or the few who have exceptional talent (whether athletics, music, film,etc) and can market themselves to a larger global market then there are going to be more and more unhappy people demanding change.

Doctor Fate wrote:
Trump appeals to typically unengaged voters--those who would not usually vote in the GOP primary. That's why he did well in open primary States.

Didn't he also do well in some closed primary states?

It's those voters, the ones who don't care what he says or what he does, who carried him to victory.

I do think it's important to note that he has won over about 5% of the November electorate--tops. In other words, he won about 10% of the likely GOP fall voters. Even though he won a record number of votes, it's a fraction of what he will need on Election Day.

How many did Romney get in the Primaries, when ended up he pushing Obama close (so close you thought he'd win it)?

I do agree, Sass. If voters are unengaged or disillusioned with politics, it is not simply the fault of those voters. And if there has been a consensus through hegemony - or a hegemonic duopoly - then eventually those outside the consensus will challenge.

A good example is the US in the decades before the Civil War. A Democratic hegemony prevailed, after Jackson, with brief Whig challenges. Then you saw the rise of the nativity American Party (Know Nothings). It took a while for the anti-Democrats to coalesce into the Republicans.

Fate

Higher percentages of working class whites in the States you listed

.
Maybe But ...

As compared with most Americans, Trump’s voters are better off. The median household income of a Trump voter so far in the primaries is about $72,000, based on estimates derived from exit polls and Census Bureau data. That’s lower than the $91,000 median for Kasich voters. But it’s well above the national median household income of about $56,000. It’s also higher than the median income for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders supporters, which is around $61,000 for both.

The Mythology Of Trump’s ‘Working Class’ Support
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the ... s-support/

sass

They've seen a systematic assault on their standard of living while at the same time being subjected to a barrage of racism/bigotry allegations when they tried to raise their objections to the new normal, and as a result they feel that nobody is speaking for them. The financial crash of 2008 brought these issues to a head but nothing has improved in the meantime for these people, so they're beginning to be receptive to simplistic arguments from populist politicians. Belittling them, which has been the stock response from our media and political elites, hasn't really worked, it's just served to make them more angry. Cynically attempting to manipulate their anger has had some limited success (see the Tea Party phenomenon), but ultimately this has also backfired when it became obvious that nothing was actually being done to advance their interests. The end result is Donald Trump.

I think this is largely true. But you have to add one more element here...
People's anger is being misdirected and used by politicians and right wing media. (At least the "base" of the republican parties anger)
They are often told myths as truisms ... and have to find reasons for their problems that don't confront their long held core beliefs.
Examples:
It was the devolving of regulation and the lack of regulation on financial markets that largely lead to the 08 collapse. But the myth that over regulation is throttling the economy is stll a bed rock principle. With little evidence to support it.
They are told that unfettered capitalism will rise all boats, until it doesn't and only a sliver of people benefit from such.
They are told that America's military is the greatest in the world, and also asked to beleive at the same time that the military is falling apart and needs far more spending.
They are told that socialized medicine is inefificient and incompetent and yet they experience Medicare and won't surrender it for anything...
You can't hold disconnected and contradictory information and make rationale decisions.
You can't pander to corporate interests in polcies over energy, pharmaceuticals, subsidies, and taxation and rail about the government causing high medical care costs, debt and poor services...
Trump is the culmination of several decades of double speak and contradiction within the republican party and the media associated with the right.
Yesterday he said he would default on US debt. Probably because his experience bankrupting companies had been personnally rewarding... And yet he hd no understanding of what a calamity it would cause to the US economy.
He clings to the notion that rounding up 11 million illegal immigrants would be a postive action. Without comprehending the actual cost to this kind of enforcement, nor the cost to the US economy if suddenly this population disappeared.
And yet his supporters have heard simplistic notions spewed from their media for decades and finally have someone they can trust to actually try and enact them. (As oppossed to the carpet baggers who spewed the nonsense to get elected but followed their corporate donors wishes when they got to Washington).
Fate linked a video that explains this misplaced anger earlier. Its down to ignorance and propoganda.And Trump is the perfect result.

rickyp wrote:Its down to ignorance and propoganda. And Trump is the perfect result.

I think the analysis presented here is pretty good. I found it surprising that Trump happened to the Republicans. I had thought that Republicans were better educated that Democrats, but I just looked it up, and the reverse is true.

http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/2014-party-identification-detailed-tables/

Sass is pretty much spot-on. But here is the problem going forward...
Few like Trump, Few like Hillary. I can see a very large portion of the electorate feeling disgusted by the options and simply not voting. Who will be the "energized" fraction?
Trump supporters.

He could very well win this with a very small turnout. He has really done a good job of rallying a large group of the population around him. Not a majority, far far from that, but seeing as how Hillary turns so many off as well, that minority of redneck, white trash supporters may just be enough to get him a win?

As a friend of mine has said many times, nobody is going to stand in line for 8 hours to vote for Hillary. I must admit that the concept of voting taking hours as opposed to minutes is somewhat alien to me, but apparently that was the reality for the millions of black voters who thronged to the polls to re-elect Obama.

waiting hours to cast a vote is alien to all of us! The longest line I ever waited in was about 3 minutes long. If you think this is anywhere even close to standard, then you are buying a lot of crap. I suppose you can find some real odd situation where the machines broke or the building had a bomb scare or some nonsense, but no, it takes but a few moments, hey, maybe you can find a long line after the work day is done or after someone busses in an old folks home that will be several minutes long? but even that would be odd let alone a few hours!

To be fair, Sass, in 2010 there were long queues in Sheffield polling stations.

While I can see many not motivated to vote "for" Hillary, I can see many could be motivated to vote "against" Trump. If he carries on as he has so far, he'll allienate and worry many.

By the way, I wonder which of his three positions on the Federal Minimum Wage he really backs?

tom

Few like Trump, Few like Hillary. I can see a very large portion of the electorate feeling disgusted by the options and simply not voting. Who will be the "energized" fraction?
Trump supporters.

where's your evidence for this?
When looking for enthusiasm levels of candidates, here's an interesting poll about the core of support for Clinton and Trump.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/190343/trump ... siasm.aspx

They both lead their opponents in the level of enthusiasm they generated. At least in March.

I suspect the following constituencies would be enthusiastic either about voting for Clinton or against Trump.
- Hispanics.
- Blacks
- Women.(especially college educated )

I suspect white middle class men with lower education levels will be enthusiastic about voting for Donald.

Much is being written about the unfavorability of the two candidates... That there are a large percentage of the population who just can't see themselves voting for one (or both) of them.
True. But truest for Trump. From 538...

Clinton’s average “strongly unfavorable” rating in probability sample polls from late March to late April, 37 percent, is about 5 percentage points higher than the previous high between 19803 and 2012. Trump, though, is on another planet. Trump’s average “strongly unfavorable” rating, 53 percent, is 20 percentage points higher than every candidate’s rating besides Clinton’s. Trump is less disliked than David Duke was when Duke ran for the presidency in 1992, but Duke never came close to winning the nomination. In fact, I’ve seen never anything like Trump’s numbers heading into a general election for someone who is supposed to be competitive.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ame ... -breaking/

As the Democratic party unites around Hillary, and it will, the realization that there is an historic opportunity to take back the Senate and House will really energize the core, and the election workers... Trnout should be high.
She's been running as if her election will be an extension of Obama's term. And he's currently running fro +4 to +10 in job approval... so thats good...
If she's smart and pick Elizabeth Warren as a running mate, she'll gain enthusiasm like crazy from the left wing and from women.

Meanwhile, the Donald is busy pissing in lots of people cornflakes. (Like Paul Ryan). So I don't see where he generates enthusiasm except with those already on the crazy train.
And his meandering notions on stuff like debt will only terriffy anyone with real knowledge about how the world operates at the nation state level.
He scares too many serious conseratives.
She doesn't scare anyone. She just isn't that likable. As a candidate.
As a secretaryof State her approval ratings were enormous.

- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's favorable rating from Americans is now 66%, up from 61% in July 2010 and her highest rating to date while serving in the Obama administration. The current rating is just one percentage point below her all-time high rating of 67%, from December 1998.

Gallop March 2011.

To be fair, Sass, in 2010 there were long queues in Sheffield polling stations.

Didn't see any evidence of that myself. There again though, my polling station is just round the corner where I live and I usually start work at about 7am and vote on my way to work. The last two elections I've voted in I've been the first person to vote.

waiting hours to cast a vote is alien to all of us! The longest line I ever waited in was about 3 minutes long. If you think this is anywhere even close to standard, then you are buying a lot of crap.

The guy who told me that works as a TV news guy in Detroit and he covers the elections. He swears that people were waiting in line for hours. Obviously I have no way of knowing of he's right about that, but I can't see why he'd lie about it.

Sassenach wrote:

To be fair, Sass, in 2010 there were long queues in Sheffield polling stations.

Didn't see any evidence of that myself. There again though, my polling station is just round the corner where I live and I usually start work at about 7am and vote on my way to work. The last two elections I've voted in I've been the first person to vote.

It was in the evening rather than the morning, but it was also on the news http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/ ... 666537.stm

"Many voters were left frustrated after queuing for several hours without reaching the polling booth."

They should have been allowed to vote if they were queuing (and that has been clarified now).

waiting hours to cast a vote is alien to all of us! The longest line I ever waited in was about 3 minutes long. If you think this is anywhere even close to standard, then you are buying a lot of crap.

The guy who told me that works as a TV news guy in Detroit and he covers the elections. He swears that people were waiting in line for hours. Obviously I have no way of knowing of he's right about that, but I can't see why he'd lie about it.

And also, there is evidence here of long queues. http://www.citylab.com/politics/2012/11 ... gest/3818/

At Detroit's Henry Ford High School, hundreds of people were lined up in two queues waiting to vote. Detroit resident Gina Porter came out to vote at 5 a.m., which put her behind a couple hundred people.

She stormed out of the location at 8:20 a.m. without casting a ballot. "People are taking about 20 minutes on average," Porter said. "It's just too long. They need more booths because their workers are too slow."

Say guys, you are both wrong. Or both right. Whatever, evidence helps you if you can find it.

if that story is true, 20 minutes to process HUNDREDS of people in line seems quite reasonable. This is a sample of the odd and unusual, a very black community that has not voted much in the past, suddenly they are voting like never before. No doubt the polling station was set up for the norm and had trouble with the huge throngs of new voters.
But I also find it hard to believe they had hundreds of people lined up before 5AM to vote, but assuming it's true only points out how abnormal this was! If you have several hundred people lined up to vote hours before the place even opens, how can you expect anything but massive delays?

It's not normal and an example of something VERY out of the normal that simply could not be predicted or even handled well even if predicted. Again, the numbers don't make any sense though.

example
This one woman showed up at 5AM
she was behind a couple hundred people
In Michigan the polling stations open at 7AM
I have to think that line grew at least some in the two hours? (and who would show up 2+ hours before it opened ....in the dark no less?)
but by 8:20 they were down to a 20 minute wait? The people started flowing in at a slower pace after it opened?

No, none of the numbers reported make any sense do they?
But it does show things were busy beyond what anyone could have predicted, they had a massive delay in that spot, this was in no way any sort of snapshot of the US election system in any way.