Working Class Hero @RealDonaldTrump

Hillary2016 made the tragic decision to abandon the white working class that made her the #1 voter preference in 2008’s primaries. Hillary Clinton “won more Democratic primary votes than Obama did” in 2008 because of the white working class. These voters are abandoned by Hillary2016. So, as we noted last October, Donald Trump has walked away with the white working class vote, make that the working class vote, as easily as a bargain hunter picks through the “sale” bins in a near empty recession hit mall.

Think we’re nuts to declare Trump the Working Class Hero? Let’s look at what the Trump haters write about this.

First, Richard Lowry, a premier Trump hater:

The fact is that the Republican Party can’t be dependent on working-class voters at the same time that it’s default economic agenda has little to say to them. If Trump has opened up the space for a conversation in the GOP about how to connect with these voters and their concerns, then his carnival show will have had some significant upside. If he goes down and the Republican political class carries on as if nothing had happened and conservative pundits who have twisted themselves into knots to justify Trump go back to hewing to the verities of the 1980s, nothing will have been gained except a more entertaining primary season than usual.

That’s a warning from the right to the right wing about Trump’s connection to the working class and the need for the conservative wing to address the grievances of the working class not just feed the rich and hope tax cuts are enough.

Lowry was the editor of the “hate Trump” issue published by National Review. That is the view on Trump from the right. Because we are fair and balanced, here’s the kookdom of DailyKooks – worried about Trump and his appeal to the working class:

Donald Trump’s appeal to white working-class voters is something Democrats are going to have to grapple with if he becomes the Republican presidential nominee. We know that intuitively, and now Working America, the community affiliate of the AFL-CIO, has provided a more in-depth look at the challenge. The organization sent canvassers to talk to 1,689 people in white working-class communities in Pennsylvania and Ohio. The good news is that 53 percent of the people Working America talked to are undecided when it comes to presidential candidates. But there’s plenty of bad news:

Donald Trump was favored by more than a third of those who chose a candidate (38%), overwhelming all other Republican candidates (27% combined). Nearly the same number chose one of two Democratic candidates, Clinton (22%) or Sanders (12%).

While most of Trump’s support comes from the staunch Republican base, 1 in 4 Democrats who chose a candidate showed a preference for Trump. […]

Party loyalty did not determine candidate choice as much as expected. Of Trump partisans, 58% said they would support him even if he runs as an independent. Additionally, a small number of Trump supporters were considering a Democrat if Trump doesn’t end up on the ballot.

Good jobs/the economy, which is historically the priority concern of Working America constituents, remains the top issue among voters we talked with, at 27%, with homeland security and terrorism next (14%) and health care as the third most frequently cited priority (10%).

Immigration was the top issue for only 5% of all those canvassed, but for Trump supporters it was the third–most-important issue (cited by 14%), after good jobs/the economy (29%) and homeland security and terrorism (21%). Voters for whom immigration is the priority issue are often Trump partisans (48%), but overall, those who prioritize immigration are a relatively small number.

Additionally, canvassers encountered people whose first choice was Trump and whose second choice was either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton.

Want to know why a billionaire is a working class hero? Go to 538, that anti-Trump swamp of Nate Silver’s delusions, masked with numbers. But don’t read Silver’s tin plated “analysis”. Read the comments, like this one from someone called Warren Dew:

One big problem for Mr. Gang of Eight Rubio and “Act of Love” Bush, as well as even possible flip-flopper Cruz: After the first 4 primaries, the race moves to the South.

Why is immigration so important down here?

Let’s look at a local mill town: Its population was about 90% white, 10% black, and almost all blue-collar. The carpet mills employed most of the male population and quite a few females, and support industries, like restaurants, gas stations, grocery stores, places that sold supplies that the mills used, etc. employed even more. As the mill had been around for about 30 years, most of the employees had slowly gained seniority, and their pay had increased; most earned between $15 to $25 per hour. The largest mill expanded about 10 years ago, but instead of directly hiring locals, it used temp services offering just barely over minimum wage. The town’s population began changing, first 5% immigrants, then 10%, until it peaked at 28% immigrants, who mostly speak spanish, require bi-lingual teachers in the schools, and haven’t assimilated into the local culture. In fact, the locals need to assimilate into theirs; many of the local restaurants closed, and mexican themed ones opened. Local markets have been replaced by conicerias. And every time the mills hired a new temp worker, they had a 50 something long-time worker train him, then found a reason to fire the older worker after 30 years on the job, or he was laid off, and they saved $10 per hour in wages. Meantime, the American worker had to either live off his savings, get an $8 per hour job at another mill thru the temp service, which is almost impossible when he is competing with young, healthy immigrants for the job, or draw unemployment while trying to find work at minimum wage as a cashier or fast food worker. After a brief transition, the local pot dealers (may they rest in peace; 2 were ruled suicides, one an unsolved murder when he was shot in the head, another left town after his wife’s head was blown off by an unknown assailant with a shotgun) were replaced with Los Zetas and El Chapo heroin and meth dealers, who don’t like each other very much. Then the Great Recession happened. A lot of the mills either closed or moved to China, and those jobs aren’t coming back. Now, there is this massive population of people who can’t speak english, have no jobs and nowhere to go, and are now depending on the people whose jobs they had taken for food stamps to feed their kids, government housing, and to pay the taxes to send their kids to school, while they continue to replace the older American workers who still have jobs at the mills that are still open.
Yes, there is a lot of anger and resentment among white (and black, for that matter) southern blue-collar workers. Establishment favorites Rubio and Bush will have a tough time getting the nomination, and Clinton has no chance of converting the South back to the Democrats, just due to that one issue. In fact, I wouldn’t be so sure that she can count on anything like the 93% of the black vote that Obama got. Most blacks work. Most are blue collar. And they have been hurt by immigration just as much as their white friends on the assembly line. I’m guessing that a real populist has a chance of converting 25% of the black vote to the Republican side.

To that comment, a commenter called Joan Crasto responded:

Warren Dew The same thing is happening in NYC construction, illegals from China and Mexico are taking the formerly UNION construction jobs which paid well and used be done by white, black and Hispanic American citizens. NYC is a santuary city, it is an abomination that the Democrats in this city and President Obama allowed this to happen by not enforcing the borders and getting rid of E-Verify. All of this accelerated after the financial crisis in 2008, even though the market for multi-million dollar condominums in Manhattan had grown exponentially. The blue collar construction workers who lost their jobs to these illegals are made [sic] as hell. I don’t doubt that many of them like what Trump is saying about controlling the borders. We are fed up in New York. This is going on all over the country. Democrats have taken these blue collar voters for granted and thrown them under the bus in favor of illegal immigrants who use borrowed or fake social security numbers….

The Prairie Fire we wrote about on the day of the Iowa vote has not been doused. Our predictions of Donald Trump wining race after race unto the nomination are still in play. If anything, others now echo what we wrote:

The Great GOP Realignment
Ted Cruz and Donald Trump may herald an historic working-class Republican revolt against the party establishment. [snip]

It’s easy to view this year’s Republican primary as a cult of personality and no more—the rise and fall of a colorful billionaire who stars in the greatest reality show on television. But what’s happening is much broader than Trump and Cruz. It’s an extension of a shift in Republican politics that’s been under way for several years. Although the media is portraying the outcome in Iowa as a repudiation of Trump, it’s better understood as a repudiation of the party establishment—just the latest in a series of uprisings dating to the 2010 election. At the congressional level, the GOP has already realigned itself to reflect this anger. Almost 60 percent of House Republicans were elected in 2010 or after. They’ve radicalized their party in Congress and driven out its establishment-minded speaker, John Boehner. [snip]

For all that the media fixated on Trump and Cruz, the Iowans I spoke to were more preoccupied with a litany of economic and cultural frustrations. The same complaints came up again and again—so did their antipathy toward their own party’s leaders in Washington, who, just about everyone agreed, had stopped listening to them entirely. “Out here in the cheap seats, those people are the ones that are our biggest enemy,” said Myron Brenner, 61, a heavy-equipment operator in Wallingford who caucused for Cruz. [snip]

While Trump didn’t prevail, his message did: Cruz, and even third-place finisher Marco Rubio, echoed the same dark themes of nativism, treachery, and corruption. Like Trump, Cruz presented himself as the savior of disaffected working-class Americans who are routinely sold out by a “Washington cartel” that encompasses the leaders of both parties. (In a sense, Cruz won by running as a pious Trump with a better turnout operation.) Rubio engineered his last-minute surge by abandoning the sunny “New American Century” pitch he’d been making for months and appealing to “all of us who feel out of place in our own country.” [snip]

As Patrick Buchanan, the former Nixon aide who won a 1996 New Hampshire primary upset by running as a populist proto-Trump, told the Washington Post: “The anger and alienation that were building then have reached critical mass now, when you see Bernie Sanders running neck and neck with Hillary Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire and Trump and Ted Cruz with a majority of Republican voters. Not to put too fine a point on it, the revolution is at hand.”

The question now is what effect this revolution will have on the Republican Party. [snip]

But a Republican electorate increasingly composed of working-class white voters who suffer disproportionately from stagnant wages and dim prospects appears to have lost faith in party leaders more interested in pursuing high-end income tax cuts and immigration reform. Given the political and economic climate, history offers an intriguing framework for what could happen next.

In 1955 the famed political scientist V.O. Key published “A Theory of Critical Elections,” an article popularizing the idea that certain elections in American history were more meaningful than the rest because “the decisive results of the voting reveal a sharp alteration of the pre-existing cleavage within the electorate.” This became known as realignment theory. Realigning elections, Key believed, create “sharp and durable” changes in the polity that can last for decades.

American historians generally see five or six elections as realigning: 1800, when Thomas Jefferson’s victory crippled the Federalist Party and shifted power from the North to the South; 1828, when Andrew Jackson’s win gave rise to the two-party system and two decades of Democratic control; 1860, when Abraham Lincoln’s election marked the ascendancy of the Republican Party and the secessionist forces that led to the Civil War; 1896, when William McKinley and a new urban political order were swept into power by a depression and industrialization; and 1932, during the Great Depression, when Franklin Roosevelt’s triumph marked the beginning of three decades of Democratic dominance. Some historians argue that Ronald Reagan’s 1980 victory, primed by the stagflation of the 1970s, was also realigning. [snip]

Both of the necessary preconditions for a realignment are present. The Great Recession of 2007-09 supplied the catalytic societal trauma: Pew Research Center data show Republican anger at Washington spiked before the 2010 election and has never fallen. And no one who’s turned on a television or attended a Republican rally can doubt for a minute that attachment to party leaders is at a low ebb.

Big “realignment” elections are rare. 2016 might be a big one. Obama destroyed the Democratic Party of FDR. The voters of the now defunct party are looking for a home. If Trump is the Republican nominee in 2016, as appears likely, be prepared to hear the word “realignment” in places other than here.

Saturday’s GOP debate has pretty much confirmed that Donald J. Trump will win the Granite State. After that victory, there will be another victory in South Carolina. After that victory piled on victory, the Super Tuesday victories throughout the South, loom.

Donald J. Trump will win in New Hampshire after the tainted loss in Iowa. For the working class, after so many losses economically and culturally, they won’t be tired of winning. The working class will cheer as win after win is scored.

The working class will applaud their working class hero, Donald J. Trump, billionaire.