Monday, November 14, 2016

Dem Party and rural white Trump voters both failed in 2016 election

As we continue to pick up and figure out what happened and what to do in the wake of this disastrous election, much attention has focused on the rural white population that overwhelmingly voted for Donald Trump. This includes a large amount of the non-college degree white population in America, a demographic of men who voted 72% for Trump, and women who gave 62% of their votes to Trump. This also resonated locally, as Trump won numerous rural areas of Wisconsin, including many counties in western Wisconsin that had voted twice for Barack Obama, and it helped explain how Trump snuck out a 1% win in the presidential race, and how Republicans expanded their majorities in the State Legislature.

Take a look at this Tweet from the New York Times' Nate Cohn to get an idea just how much the vote shifted in rural parts of the Upper Midwest



Along those lines, western Wisconsin State Senator Kathleen Vinehout went on Mike Gousha’s show over the weekend, and tried to figure out why so many areas of rural Wisconsin that previously went blue ended up so red on Election Night.
After the election results, Vinehout called clerks and election judges in western Wisconsin to try and determine what happened. She found estimated increases in first-time voters making up as much as 10 percent of the vote, with the majority of these first time voters being what she considered “typical Trump voters,” describing them as “white men with work boots and fuzzy beards in their early 30s to mid 40s.”

She said that part of the working-class enthusiasm for Trump could be traced to media coverage that painted Clinton supporters as college-educated elites.

“Sort of the class solidarity brought some folks to Trump that maybe should be Dem voters or would be Dem voters,” she said.

She also placed blame on Democrat’s reliance on campaign strategies that don’t work in rural contexts.

“And I’m kind of frustrated with some of the Madison insiders who constantly run cookie cutter campaigns, and they don’t realize a campaign in a rural area is very different,” Vinehout said. “If you’ve got a candidate who’s really in that area, who does the parades and the chicken dinners … It’s much better than talking with wealthy people and putting a lot of money into TV ads or direct mailers.”


Listen to the rare elected Dem from rural Wis

I agree with the main idea here from Sen. Vinehout- Democratic Party officials and decision-makers are mostly made up of individuals who fit into the Obama Coalition of educated whites, minorities, and other socially-progressive minded people. While these demographic groups (of which I am a part of) are generally people that will help move the country ahead and believe in the right things, too many in the party have lost how to talk to and influence blue-collar whites, despite generally having policies that work better for that group of people.

I’d add one point to Vinehout’s analysis. The average GOP doesn’t gives much of a fuck about the average rural Wisconsinite (like the average big-city Dem doesn’t), but the Republican candidates have the advantage of GOPper-ganda radio and TV to plant their daily message, along with personalized items for rural people like guns or religion or property taxes. Dems continue to think that intrusive door-knocking and traditional media are the only way to reach people, because that’s what works better in densely-populated big cities. Instead, there needs to be constant messaging and awareness of the Dem message in local areas, and that includes billboards, LOCAL radio and TV ads, and open events encouraging people to see Dems on an everyday basis. Dems also need to give more appeals to the gut over trying to win intellectual arguments- most people living their day-to-day don’t have time for digesting these philosophies, and that’s doubly true in the noise leading up to a November election.

These variables seem to have created a false consciousness in rural Wisconsin that UW Professor Katherine Cramer described in her recent book “The Politics of Resentment.” Cramer wrote this in USA Today in April on the eve of the Wisconsin presidential primary about common themes that came up in her interviews with small-town Wisconsin residents over the past few years.
There were three parts to rural resentment. Many folks perceived that the state government in Madison sucked in all of their money, and spent it on itself or on Milwaukee. They perceived that city folks did not understand their difficult economic situation — poverty and unemployment are higher in rural counties and median income is lower.

And they felt very few people were listening to their concerns. They were amazed when I came back to their groups for second and third visits.

They also resented how their own resentment of people in cities gets labeled as racism, and subsequently ignored. And they had a point. The resentment fueling our politics is more complex and thus more powerful (which is why it’s a mistake to write off Trump supporters as racists). Racism is part of this mix, but it is bound up with resentment toward a variety of entities, including government.

That potent mix of attitudes fuels our politics. When Scott Walker ran for governor of Wisconsin in 2010, he made use of these urban vs. rural divides (even though he was at the time the county executive of Milwaukee County) by warning that “our” roads wouldn’t get funding if we accepted an $810 million dollar federal grant for high speed rail between Madison and Milwaukee. He also talked about the overpaid public employees in “places like” Madison.
Some of this rings true. Because our media is based out of bigger cities and our national media is absorbed with the Acela corridor in the Northeast and Hollywood, small-town middle America is badly ignored. Combine that with the fact that almost all of the gains in the US economy in the last 16 years have been concentrated in cities, while smaller towns have flailed under outsourcing, de-industrialization, and a general loss of human capital to the larger amounts of opportunities and progressive way of life in bigger cities.

These places are dying and many people in both parties don’t seem to care about it. This is especially true when you look at alleged Democrats like Hillary Clinton and the corporatist DNC, where they talk is about “retraining” or “new economic opportunities” and worrying about student loan debt. All of these things are good ideas, but it’s not followed up by a lot of talk about how corporate America has screwed over the average non-college-educated worker by casting them aside like a rotten piece of meat, and how wages have been held down by union-busting and unrestricted trade with Third World countries.

Trump acknowledged that these left-behind people exist, said that the system was corrupt and slanted toward “elites”, and spoke to their economic concerns and the lack of hope. That apparently was all these people needed to hear, even if his tax plan is still failed, trickle-down garbage and will allow Wall Street and banksters to screw over everyday citizens more than ever. Team DNC/Clinton’s lame response was a theme of “Trump is dangerous, Trump is racist/sexist.” If they really wanted the votes of small-town white America, they should have been saying “Trump is a buffoon who thinks you are stupid enough to fall for his bullcrap.”

But that doesn’t let these small-towners off the hook. Their whole “you hurt my feelings by saying I was racist/sexist” act is pathetic. These people go out of their way to say how tough and self-reliant they are (as if me and my wife aren’t, despite us paying a $2,000/month mortgage and thousands in property taxes every year), and how overly sensitive us eju-kated urban types are. But when someone criticizes the actions and motivations of the candidate they support (and his white-supremacist supporting cast), they start screeching like little babies and claiming we don’t understand and that’s not what they’re about.

Sorry, but if you back someone that wants to treat large swaths of Americans as second-class citizens, voting for that candidate makes you compliant and accepting of that mentality and the policies that result. If being called out for doing so hurts you feelings, THAT IS A YOU PROBLEM, and you should look inward and decide if you should be supporting someone like that. Or if supporting a racist doesn’t bother you, then stop bitching about people calling you on it, because why do you care what they say anyway?

Yes, the Democratic Party has real work to do to gain back the votes in white rural America, and it needs to stop playing footsie with corporates and insiders, and stop ignoring the real suffering that continues in small-town America. I do think being out of power will help this, because during the election campaign, saying that people were being left behind indirectly would be criticizing the otherwise-strong economic record of President Obama, and criticizing oligarchy and big-money control of politics implicitly indicted Hillary Clinton. Now Dems can and should speak freely about the true corruption and crippling economic inequality that is happening, both in America and especially in Wisconsin.

But small-town America also needs to get their ass off of auto-pilot, stop defaulting to flipping the middle finger of resentment and anger, and get on their feet in demanding more from business and government in having themselves be rewarded for their hard work. Also, those people need to get some moral backbone where they realize that demanding equal rights for everyone is something that helps everyone, and that they will not be immune to the moral and financial damage that results to this country if we injure people in the name of “Making America Great Again.”

I’m still flying back and forth between despair, rage, disgust, and wanting to chuck it all and stop caring. I have tremendous fears about how the GOP will abuse the levers of power and try to raise even more barriers from having democracy work for the everyday person (including voter suppression and crackdowns on free speech). But at the same time, I think silence and acceptance allows the evil to get worse, and I can’t let this go away, and we can’t let the Republicans destroy this thing. Getting the Democratic Party out of the big-city cocktail lounges and taking it into the small-town bars is one of the few options left to try to reverse a tide that is threatening to sweep aside democracy in this state and this country for good.

But it’s now going to take a lot more than it would have had both the Dems and small-town, less-educated white people stopped being insular and self-absorbed, and not messed up this November election in their own ways.

Sunday, November 13, 2016

Where you should go in Wisconsin...and not go

Been a busy Homecoming weekend in these parts, so haven't had much of a chance to write. But as the election fallout continues, I think one path that must be taken is shunning and boycotting areas that imposed this Orange Fool on our Country, and the Reign of Error that has been imposed during the Age of Fitzwalkerstan.

With that in mind, I give you the following list of counties where you should give your money to in this upcoming Christmas season and future day-trip destinations.

Counties that voted for both Feingold-Clinton
Milwaukee
Dane
Rock
Green
Iowa
Sauk
Portage
La Crosse
Eau Claire
Menominee
Ashland
Bayfield
Douglas

Counties that voted for only Feingold
Columbia
Lafayette
Richland
Crawford
Vernon

Avoid spending a dime in anywhere else in the state if you can. If these dingbats want to play "divide and conquer" and wreck this state and this country because their lives are so shitty, well let’s play. "But Jake, that'll just cause more resentment." So what? The only way these people will get off Crazy Train is through suffering direct pain, and be injured by right-wing rule. We may as well speed the process.

I’ll revise this a bit once the ward-by-ward reports come down from the Wisconsin Elections Commission (cities like Oshkosh, Racine and Kenosha and maybe even Green Bay/Appleton might be OK under this standing), but for now, use it as a guide.

Thursday, November 10, 2016

Lower city turnout, 920 and rural vote = Trump wins Wisconsin

I’m starting to be clear-headed enough to want to dig into the election numbers from Wisconsin, and how enough voters of this state could give victories to Donald Trump and Ron Johnson. Wait, hold on (vomits in own mouth). Ok, now I’m good.

Matt DeFour’s rundown in the Wisconsin State Journal is pretty thorough, and talks to party hacks to sort out the nuts-and-bolts reasons. But I think a simple look at these topline totals explains a lot.
Overall turnout was 66.2 percent of eligible voters, according to the Wisconsin Elections Commission, the lowest level in a Wisconsin presidential election since 1996.

A little more than 2.94 million votes were cast for president in Wisconsin, not counting write-ins, according to preliminary results tallied by The Associated Press. That's almost 124,000 fewer than in 2012.

Trump was able to win a close 27,000-vote victory in the state — a margin of 0.9 percent, 47.87‑46.94 — by picking up about 1,500 more votes than Romney, while Clinton received nearly 239,000 fewer votes than Obama.

Third-party candidates received more than 150,000 votes.
I think the lack of total votes and high third party figures (nearly 5.2%) point to the fact that many were uninspired and/or disgusted by both Trump and Clinton, and didn’t feel either were worth filling in the marker for…or even worth making the effort to vote at all. This is certainly true in 3 Lakeshore counties with significant minority populations in Southeastern Wisconsin.

Voter dropoff, president 2012 vs. 2016
Milwaukee Co. 492,576 vs 444,108 (-48,468, -9.8%)
Racine County 103,364 vs 96,904 (-6,460, -6.2%)
Kenosha County 80,897 vs 77,576 (-3,321, -4.1%)

Dig deeper, and you’ll see that the voter dropoff was especially bad in the Cities of Milwaukee, Racine and Kenosha, and it’s pretty infuriating if you are a Dem, because Hillary Clinton won the City of Milwaukee with 76.6 percent of the vote, Racine with 64 percent, and Kenosha with 56%.

City of Milwaukee 288,459 vs. 248,045 (-40,414, -14.0%)
City of Racine 35,512 vs. 30,837 (-4,675, -13.2%)
City of Kenosha 45,148 vs 41,935 (-3,213, -7.1%)

If you give Clinton the same percentages in those 3 cities, but the same turnout as those cities had in the Obama-Romney election of 2012, then she makes up over 23,000 votes on Trump. As of today, Trump unofficially leads Clinton in Wisconsin by 27,257 votes. Seems to explain a lot of it, eh? Now whether that dropoff’s all due to dispirited voters or whether it’s the suppression measures passed by Scott Walker and the Wisconsin GOP, I’ll leave that up to you.

Now that doesn’t mean there wasn’t also a shift in how the voters chose, especially in rural parts of the state. Take a look at this picture of the final 2016 presidential results by county in Wisconsin



And compare it to this picture from 2012's presidential election. The darker colors are for margins of 30+ only, but you'll still get the idea.



The erosion in Western Wisconsin by Clinton is very telling when you look at these two maps, and you can see how Senate Majority Leader Jen Shilling nearly lost her seat, which includes 2 of these blue-to-red counties. Interestingly, Feingold did better than Clinton in these areas and South Central Wisconsin, winning 5 more counties than Hillary, and consistently getting another 3-5 of the electorate.

Also notice the darker red in Northeastern Wisconsin. Obama was competitive in the 920 in 2012, staying within 2 points of Romney in big-population Brown and Outagamie Counties, and actually won Winnebago County (Oshkosh). But Clinton lost Brown County by nearly 11, Outagamie by 14, and Winnebago by 7.5. This gave Trump an advantage of nearly 34,700 in those three counties alone, more than his entire winning margin in the state, and Johnson did even better in those 3 large counties, beating Feingold by over 47,700 votes, nearly half of his winning margin.

The Trump 2016 map in Wisconsin resembles Scott Walker’s 2014 midterm map more than Obama’s 2012 map, and the lower voter turnout goes along with that trend. Those are things that should alarm Dems in the state going forward, but also identifies the 2016 results as being far from the major mandate for the GOP that some may want to portray it as. Indeed, Trump has basically the same number of votes Romney got in 2012 when Mittens was losing by nearly 7% to Obama.

Moral of the story for Dems- get someone at the top of the ticket that the Wisconsin voters like, so they’ll want to go out to the polls and vote for them. Hillary’s loss of 71 of 72 counties to Bernie Sanders should have been a warning sign, but the top-down DNC and DPW refused to hear the message, and now we’re going to have to live with the awful results.

I’ll have more to break down as the more official numbers come in. But those items stand out to me for now. 

Barca statement shows why Dems lose, need new leadership

You want to know why some rural Wisconsin voters decided to “drain the swamp” with Donald Trump at the presidential level, while keeping all GOP representatives in power at the Capitol, and actually throwing out 1 Dem in the Assembly and 1 Dem in the Senate? Read this pathetic post-election response from Assembly Dem leader Peter Barca today.
"I hope we can work together [with the Assembly Republicans] to solve our transportation crisis, let’s fund our public schools, let’s grow jobs and wages, let’s tackle student loan debt – and let’s end this endless cycle of power grabs and special interest influence that has made people in Wisconsin feel like the system is rigged against them. Here in this state, protecting clean open and transparent government is especially vital at this time of complete one-party control," Rep. Barca said. "We hope all citizens will join together by staying engaged in our communities, in our state and in the country we love."
ARE YOU KIDDING ME WITH THAT WEAK SHIT? You know the GOP won’t listen or care about one thing you say, except to suck you and other Dems in to some scheme of theirs that they can’t pull off on their own (see Bucks arena, additional road borrowing).

Barca and the rest of the Dem minority members in the Legislature shouldn’t be wasting their time reaching out to these destructive fuckheads. Instead, they should telling voters what they’re really going to get for deciding to not change things at the Capitol, because I bet it isn’t going to be what those folks thought they were voting for.

Here’s how I would have stated it.

“We just had an election where much of the state feels like they have been let down by leaders of all parties that have refused to deal with the real problems they face. These include stagnant and declining wages, a political system that seems beholden only to the specialized interests of the rich, corporate, and connected, and needed services that continue to fall apart and not deliver for the taxpayers that count on them.

These voters are desperate for help, and I do not think they will look kindly on a Wisconsin GOP that continues to give away lavish tax breaks to the few who are doing well these days, while refusing to do a thing for the many people and communities that are in need. The voters of Wisconsin want their schools to be strong, their roads to be safe, their streams and landscapes to remain scenic and useful, and to be able to provide a decent quality of life for themselves and their families.

Democrats believe in these principles, and we will call out any attempt of the Wisconsin GOP to further threaten these sacred values and needs. If the Wisconsin GOP wants to change their self-centered direction and start focusing on the real problems of everyday Wisconsinites, we are here to help. But either way, the Democrats will be the voice for the Wisconsinites who do not have the time or money to lobby their local legislator on rigging the system in their favor.”


That wasn’t so hard, was it? I imagine many of you could say something similar and probably better.

Peter, you did some great things during the Act 10 struggle 5 ½ years ago, but this “let’s work together on solutions” crap needs to be left in the 20th Century where it belongs. The WisGOPs do not care about solutions to real problems facing Wisconsinites, they care about grabbing as much political power and money that they can for themselves and their donors. THE END. And being seen as a contributor to that system doesn’t make you the nice guys in the eyes of a voting public who have a lot of bigger things to worry about than day-to-day politics, and it doesn’t get rewarded at the polls in less-educated, rural parts of the state that Dems need to win back.

No matter how naïve I find their decision to be, it seems to me that these voters picked Trump and the GOP because they felt that they could “shake things up” (along with doing their bidding on self-absorbed personal shit like guns and abortion). To these voters, the appearance of action and the appearance of hearing their concerns is more important than the destructive results, especially if those destructive results aren’t able to be seen on a daily basis (like messing up city schools or the slow erosion of local government services).

It’s well past time that Dems talk about people’s everyday concerns and connect those problems to the horrid GOP policies that made this state an economic laggard for the last 5 years. Talk to the anger first, and stop trying to win the intellectual debate- thoughtfulness doesn’t get rewarded with much of the voters you need to win. Peter Barca’s press release illustrates why the Dems continue to lose in this state, and the Assembly Dems need to pick a new person to head up their tiny, 35-person caucus, because Peter hasn’t gotten it done.

Hell, we couldn’t even win Peter’s usually-blue home county of Kenosha on Tuesday! That’s completely unacceptable, as unacceptable as the DPW’s record of timidity and failure in the 2010s. This includes lame statements from its “leaders” all the way down to the failure of a centralized, strong message for pretty much any time since the Act 10 protests ended. THAT ROUTINE HAS TO BE OVER NOW.

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

Bellweather counties portends GOP win in Wisconsin

Obviously I’m deeply disturbed, somewhat scared and very disgusted over last night’s elections. And it's not just the horrid spectrre of Trump being president, but because of the fact that Drumpf and (mo)Ron Johnson won the state of Wisconsin. From the unofficial vote totals by county, here are a few quick things that stand out for me.

First, when I previewed what might be a bellweather for the rest of the state, I said that Adams County was a place that had not only nearly matched the state in November elections since 2008, but also swung drastically in favor of the winner.

That trend held up, in that Adams did go GOP yesterday, but the margin of victory swung wildly to the Republicans in Adams County, well above the close statewide votes.

Statewide
Trump 47.9-47.0
Johnson 50.2-46.8

Adams County
Trump 59.2-37.4
Johnson 53.9-41.2

In addition, Adams County helped to return pro-CAFO/WisGOP legislators Scott Krug and Luther Olsen to the Capitol for another term, and removed Dem Sen. Julie Lassa from office in favor of another pro-Big Ag pollution Republican. Looks like that’s what they want, so feel free to round up the piggies and send them to Adams. Taste the greatness out of the tap!

Another thing I said is that if Kenosha County or Jackson County went for Trump, then he was likely to win the state. I didn’t really expect it to happen…but it did in both races.

Statewide
Trump 47.9-47.0
Johnson 50.2-46.8

Jackson County
Trump 53.3-41.5
Johnson 50.4-44.8

Kenosha County
Trump 47.5-47.2
Johnson 49.5-47.0

To add onto those figures, notice that Feingold did better than Clinton in Jackson County (in Western Wisconsin) while Clinton outperformed Feingold in Kenosha County (in the SE corner of Wisconsin). From my cursory glance at the data, this seems to be a common pattern yesterday- Russ better on the western half, but underperforming Hillary in the Eastern half (and both getting beat pretty badly there, I’ll add).

And the 7 “bellweather” counties that were generally sure signs of Dem wins if they went blue? 0 for 7, and often favoring the GOP candidates by sizable amounts.

I’ll have much more at later points, but this is far too discouraging to go into past this point for me today

Tuesday, November 8, 2016

Final early vote figures lean havily to high population places in Wisconsin

The final early voting/absentee figures have now been reported by the Wisconsin Elections Commission, with over 821,000 votes already cast, which would be around 27% of the predicted 3.1 million total turnout in Wisconsin. As I've been doing over the last month, let's start with the breakdown of state votes in the November 2012 and November 2014 elections.





Now let's compare to the early voting/absentee numbers from the Elections Commission.

WOW Counties 16.55%
Milwaukee Co. 15.80%
Dane County 15.32%
Brown County 5.06%
Outagamie Co. 4.24%
Racine County 3.90%
Kenosha Co. 3.40%
Winnebago Co. 3.37%
Rock County 3.04%
Marathon Co. 2.03%
Rest of the State 27.29%

While the "rest of the state" figure is well below their typical turnout figures, La Crosse County is well above their typical levels, at 2.64%. That, and the strong numbers in Winnebago County (also well above their typical share of the electorate) may indicate that college students in those counties took advantage of early voting in large numbers. We've also seen reports here in Madison of strong turnout on the UW campus here, with early voting an important part of that equation.



On the flip side, I'm now seeing reports indicting the WOW Counties are having even higher turnout than normal, so we'll see what the final numbers look like as things shake out. I know that Dane County is growing faster than the WOW Counties, but we'll see how that translates to share of the votes.

That's all I got. All I can do is hang out and wait now, I guess. My simple message to my fellow Americans and my fellow Wisconsinites is: DO NOT FUCK THIS UP.

Monday, November 7, 2016

What is the Wisconsin bellweather for tomorrow?

On the eve of the election, I wanted to see if there are certain places that give the state's "tea leaves" more than others. This is different than the heavily partisan, large population counties in the state, which consistently vote for Democrats (Dane and Milwaukee Counties) or Republicans (the suburban Milwaukee "WOW Counties"). So I checked the final results of the last 4 November elections, and used the "topline" contests of the presidency and governorship, as those alternate every 2 years here, and drew my analysis out of that.

What I found is that exactly ¼ of the counties in Wisconsin voted for Democrat Barack Obama in the November presidential elections of 2008 and 2012, and voted for Republican Scott Walker in the Governor’s elections of 2010 and 2014. Here are those 18 counties.

Counties that voted for winner Nov 08, 10, 12, 14
Adams
Buffalo
Door
Dunn
Forest
Grant
Jackson
Juneau
Kenosha
Lafayette
Lincoln
Marquette
Pepin
Price
Racine
Sawyer
Winnebago

These are mostly small-population rural counties in the western and northern parts of the state, with the clear exception of Kenosha, Racine, and Winnebago. Those three counties do have large rural areas as well, but also have medium-size cities making up much of their populations (Kenosha, Racine and Oshkosh, respectively).

What I wanted to do from there is figure out which places had results that were closest to the statewide results (Obama +13.9 in 2008 and +6.9 in 2012, and Walker +5.8 in 2010 and +5.7 in 2014). When you put those figures together and average them, here is the “bellweather” counties in Wisconsin over the last 8 years.



Counties closest to Wisconsin statewide Nov election
Adams 1.9% avg. away from statewide
Dunn 2.2%
Door 2.7%
Forest 3.3%
Winnebago 3.7%
Kenosha 3.9%

Even more interesting is that Adams County is the not only the closest to the winning totals, but it has also gone for the winner by a higher margin than the rest of the state in all 4 of these elections. Looks like a county to keep your eye on for Tuesday.

And there’s Winnebago and Kenosha showing up again on the list, which makes the fact that both counties had heavy early voting an interesting signal for what we might see tomorrow night.

There’s one other interesting trend that’s worthy to investigate as part of this group of 18 bellweather counties. While all of these counties have voted for the winner of those 4 November races, many of them have cast more votes for the Republican or Democratic candidate than the rest of the state in all of those races- it just wasn’t enough of a difference to give more of their votes for that party in the races that party lost (GOP in 2008 and 2012, Dems in 2010 and 2014).

What this means is if you see any of these counties trending a certain direction, it seems likely that the candidate from the other party won’t win statewide. So let’s take a look at that list.

Clinton unlikely to win if these counties vote Trump
Jackson
Kenosha

Trump unlikely to win if these counties vote Clinton
Lincoln
Marquette
Pepin
Price
Racine
Sawyer
Winnebago

Maybe those trends don’t hold as much tomorrow with such a divisive candidate like Trump at the top of the ticket, who is likely to lose educated people and minorities in higher levels than past GOP candidates, but may well win a higher rate of lower-educated whites. But I still think it could be handy guide to keep around as the returns come in, and see if we can get an early indication on where things are heading in Wisconsin before the numbers from big-population counties start rolling in.