As the election came to a close, with many happy and many, many upset, Donald Trump has won the 2016 Presidential election. The working-class whites, as predicted in previous blogs, drove Donald Trump to his victory. It has always been a possibility, but in this case, it was made a reality. Democrats have been far more dependent on working-class voters than people realize. Counties that supported Mr. Obama in 2012 voted for Mr. Trump by 20 points says a recent article by Nate Cohn in the New York Times. This means that Democrats were banking on the votes that Trump ended up gaining. This explains why states like Pennsylvania and North Carolina went in the opposite direction than people would have thought. You would think that his rhetoric would be significant to this situation (like how stupid things would sound worse because he is running for president) but in this case his rhetoric was apparently perfect for the situation because working-class whites absorbed it like a sponge. It has now been proven that they did in fact see him as their working class “hero” and believe he will make things better, I mean great, for them.
From this point forward not much can happen since Mr. President-elect Trump has already won. What will probably happen is not much a change to the lifestyles of working-class whites. It takes a lot of time to make things happen in the government and who even knows if Donald Trump knows how to move these processes along. What should happen is some kind of lawsuit or impeachment due to the controversy of Donald Trump and the fear that everyday minorities have to face.
Last night it was finally revealed after this long campaign season that Donald Trump is our president-elect. This was a surprise to many pollsters , and I think a surprise to many Americans as well. We’ve seen throughout this whole season that Mr. Trump was appealing to the white working class, as this article says he “…won virtually every state from Appalachia to the Rockies” because of the Americans that make “real, tangible things — food, fiber, energy and manufactured goods”.
I’ve wondered what made this demographic in particular vote for Trump, not just based on his promises to “bring jobs back to America” or the fear of losing their jobs to overseas workers- but the root of the anxiety of the future and the root of the hate for Hillary Clinton.
I think that when it came down to it, Clinton was far too elitist regarding education. Her deplorable comment combined with her supporter’s comments that Trump supporters are all “uneducated” angered and isolated the working class who might not have a college degree. In fact it was shown in this article, how the largest group of voters in this election were white voters with “no college”. These voters clung to Trumps promises for the future because they felt it included them and they were not being patronized in the same way they were if Clinton took office.
It was not just the industries they worked in that pushed the right, but also the self pride in their work rather than their schooling that made them align against a “liberal elite”.
As the election comes to a close, Trump is depending heavily on the working class for a win. Trump’s entire campaign rhetoric, that has been aimed at the working class, can be summed up in one sentence from a rally in New Hampshire: “Tomorrow, the American working class will strike back.” Trump’s rhetoric is all about making the working class believe the establishment is at fault for their suffering and that only he can fix it. His rhetoric seems to be working, but what is interesting is that him and President Obama “might have something in common.”
In 2008, President Obama was arguing for change and taking the anti-establishment route…sound familiar? Trump has motivated his base by blaming the establishment and asking for change. Both 2008 and 2016 are “change elections” and it seems to not matter what party argues this stance. The working class is a valuable group of voters, because it seems like they are often left out and hurt most by the decisions in D.C.. President Obama tried appealing to this group in 2008, but was not even as close to successful as Trump. But why?
Trump not only poses as an outsider, but is one. Fighting the establishment is easier when you aren’t part of it. When Trump says things like “the American working class will strike back,” he is telling them that they have the power. This has all successfully moved this group into action, something that was not very successful by either party in 2008 or 2012. But the question all comes down to how many votes will this actually bring in and will it override the Hispanic vote that Clinton has received?
No matter the outcome, Trump’s rhetoric has rallied and activated a class that probably won’t quiet down after the results come in today. Who will be the next person to lead these voters?
Donald Trump’s campaign has been surrounded by his idea of “Making America Great Again” that he prides himself on every chance that he gets. He blames a great amount of why America isn’t as great as it could be, on trade with China. The record of U.S. free trade policies for working and middle-class America reveals havoc, not benefit. For example, total U.S. employment since NAFTA and China trade the past two decades has witnessed a loss of more than 6 million U.S. manufacturing jobs. This in fact has a lot to do with the working class, because Trump has argued that he has plans to bring jobs back to the states. It is very clear that Trump has won over many of the hearts of the working class that includes a high concentration of white, male, middle aged, non-college educated, working class voters, by attacking current U.S. trade policies.
The issue here is whether or not Trump is truly serious about making changes to the U.S. free trade policies. He’s been using the symbolic world view as a rhetorical strategy when discussing policies especially ones connected with China. This is a great tactic in his defense to gather voters in the manufacturing field because of his advocation of trying to implement harsh trade restrictions on China. However, his businessman persona contradicts his current rhetoric against trade because so many of his Trump products are produced in many other countries, including China. In order to be effective, however, Trump must demonstrate that he has a realistic and effective plan to actually see all of his ideas through, not just making empty promises. Although, his rhetorical strategy may have won over the hearts of some, but not all of America agrees with his plan here.
Many attribute Donald Trump’s success to his enormous appeal to white working class voters, sometimes characterized as “angry white men.” When considering Trump’s rhetoric of the working class, however, this is only half the story – it doesn’t account for female members of the working class, which constitute half of the working class. He is known to have trouble appealing to women, and has tried to combat this difficulty by vocalizing his proposal to fund a childcare plan that includes paid maternity leave. By using the term “maternity leave” rather than “parental leave,” he is more specifically targeting female working class voters, particularly mothers. He even went so far as to claim that his opponent “does not have a childcare plan,” attempting to establish himself as the candidate in support of policies that would benefit mothers.
Trump also has attempted to appeal to working class women by doing a rare full apology and correction for his comments on abortion. He previously said that women who have abortions should be punished, and hours later commented that the woman should NOT be punished, that women who receive abortions are victims, and that the doctors performing them should be subject to punishment. In the third and final debate with Clinton, he tried to frame abortion not as evil entirely, but rather depicted a gruesome and upsetting scenario where a late-term abortion resulted in the killing of a developed fetus. This is a much more effective rhetorical strategy for appealing to female voters – rather than criticize women for receiving any sort of abortion, he depicts an extreme case that evokes disgusting imagery.
Back at it again, Donald Trump and his mop have come to clean up a mess. Donald Trump has stated that he has a very strict plan when it comes to immigration. After his push to “build a wall”, Donald Trump has become unfavorable in the eyes of immigrants. Trump’s views on immigration have been focused on the negative aspects he believes they bring to America. He feels that we need to enforce immigration laws at the border and at the workplace. He would only welcome immigrants who “embrace our way of life“.
Due to these remarks and his plan to build that wall, polls have shown that Latino immigrant voters prefer Hilary over Trump in a 70%-19% margin as shown in the America’s Choice’s recent poll. This significant difference has caused Trump to take action. Recently Trump paid a visit to his Doral National Golf Club in South Florida. There he brought up many of his workers up to the stage to show their support for him. The general manager of the club stated that, “Trump has used temporary immigrant visas to bring in workers for his hotels and other properties”. Trump has stated at rallies that not only does he not want immigrants to take the jobs of Americans, but he wants to make it harder for them to come to America. This has shown a clear flip-flopping of his ideas. His rhetoric towards the working-class people tries to make it seem like he relates to them at a personal level and wants what they want. Since Trump, since the beginning, is a businessman he will do what he can to cut costs by hiring the immigrants he brought to this country so that they will stay loyal to him.
Not only did this rhetoric affect the white working-class who cheer at his rallies, it also struck a chord within those who do work for him at the Golf Club today. First of all, the workers are employed due to the existence of Trump’s Doral National Golf Club. Secondly, they have temporary visas because of Trump himself. Thirdly, when appealing to working-class people, Trump likes to empathize with them and states that he himself knows what the struggle is like. There at that Golf Club, Trump brings them on stage to promote him and eventually “jokes” at them “you’re fired” if you don’t say you working there is good. By enforcing his control over his workers, he shows he is above them and once again not a representative of a working-class American.
With the flip-flopping of stances, not only on immigration but on his stance as a member of the working class, what should happen is the eventual realization that Trump can only appeal to one crowd at a time. Due the great connection between candidates and media during this election, the video of the workers of Doral showing support for Trump has already gone viral right before early voting began and will probably happen is the rising numbers in immigrant votes in support of Donald Trump.
“the notion that this guy is your champion, the notion that this guy is going to fight for working people, when his entire life, he didn’t have time for anybody who wasn’t rich or wasn’t a celebrity, who wouldn’t let you in to one of his hotels unless you were cleaning the room, wouldn’t let you on to one of his golf courses unless you were mowing the fairway? Come on!”
But does this warning from President Obama trump the candidates previous appeal to these voters? I think not for several reasons.
First of all, President Obama historically lacks credibility with this audience as evidenced by his lower approval ratings among this group. His lower credibility (or ethos) means that messages will not be received with as much gravity compared to if someone who had more credibility with the working class was to speak. It could’ve been more strategic to have someone like Mitt Romney, who has demonstrated success among this population in the past as well as demonstrated a lack of support for Trump.
President Obama also did not appeal to the logos of the audience, as he could have employed more empirical evidence. He offered examples, but not hard numbers which can also be persuasive to some listeners. I think it could have been effective to add more anecdotal evidence as well.
The speech, although persuasive to some, did not appeal to the working class voters, especially those who do not see President Obama as a strong source. We’ll see if Trump decides to reply to the ineffective remarks.
Ohio, as always, seems to be the place to be in the last few weeks of an election. With Clinton’s campaign trying to stop the bleeding from the new email discovery, Trump has had room to keep calm and make the argument he wants, and he does this in Ohio. During the first debate, Clinton was able to portray this image of her being President of the United States. Trump followed suit this week in Ohio by using the future tense in his rhetoric which seems to be a good tactic to encourage hope with his working class voters.
Many times during a rally in Ohio, which Trump showed up an hour late to though none of his supporters minded, Trump kept changing “If I’m elected…” to “When I’m elected…” and this seemed to rally the crowd. The working class is a large component of the electorate in Ohio and this positive rhetoric worked the way it did back in the primaries. The rally in Ohio was meant for the working class, not just because of its use of a more positive future tense, but because of its content. Trump made sure to discuss certain companies that moved to Mexico and talked about Clinton’s “inadequacy.” He also talked about Mexico and the wall: “And yes, we will build a wall…and Mexico will pay for the wall.” Trump recognized that this rally was his typical “Trump rally” and understood his working class audience well enough to say all the right things. But he made sure to say all the right things in a more hopeful and positive light.
What was interesting, was that during this rally, Trump did not discuss much about voting down the ballot, but Pence sure did. With the rally looking like it was composed of working class voters, someone had to have the goal of encouraging other votes besides one for Trump. Trump, as usual, wanted to spark his audience, which he did, while Pence had a surrogate’s job. Trump utilized a future (and hopeful) tense in portraying his win and went on to discuss popular working class issues which kept his base, but did it get him anymore votes?
Majority of the white working class is women, and lately they have not been on the bandwagon with the rest of the working class. Trump hasn’t had the best reputation and relationship with women prior to and during this election. His misogynist behavior and comments have been the leading cause of Trump’s lack of support among white working class women. During the first debate between the two presidential candidates, Clinton mentioned a number of instances where Trump degraded women by humiliating a teenage beauty queen and fat shaming Alicia Machado on FOX News. These instances don’t make Trump look good at all for most voters.
According to politico.com, “if you look at the white working class, Americans without a college degree, the majority, 53 percent, are women.” This rhetorically doesn’t make sense for Trump because he should be doing everything in his power to win over the votes of the working class women. During the third and final debate, Clinton interrupted Trump fewer than five times and Trump interrupted her more than 40 times. It’s clear that Trump feels a sense of superiority over women by constantly demeaning them. What’s also interesting about Trump is his refusal to talk about the sexual assault allegations against him from nine women. Instead of addressing the issue and engaging in a conversation about sexual assault and harassment, Trump said that he’d rather not talk about it. This was interesting because one would think that Trump would at least want to clear his name on the subject matter.
Donald Trump’s campaign has been unique in how often it defies Republican orthodoxy. He has supported protectionism through tariffs, which contradicts the normal conservative position of supporting free trade. He has criticized the Iraq war, even going so far as to criticize George W. Bush’s wars during the primary debates. He has also repeatedly advocated infrastructure spending, something not typically strongly supported by conservatives. This support for infrastructure spending is especially interesting in light of Ben Carson’s comparison of Trump to President Roosevelt.
Much of Roosevelt’s New Deal was centered around “rebuilding” the country through infrastructure projects, such as the Public Works Administration and Tennessee Valley Authority. This is part of why Carson compared Trump to FDR – Trump has voiced support of rebuilding America through infrastructure spending, particularly emphasizing how broken our roads and bridges are. This is also tied to his criticism of the Iraq war – he has previously commented that we “wasted money in Iraq” while our infrastructure crumbles. This is clearly rhetoric targeting the working class. He is not only discussing jobs programs that would benefit working class Americans, he is using imagery of “building” and “constructing” in a way that is effective to middle class and blue collar workers. This is strange in its disregard for standard Republican doctrine, but Trump is known (and perhaps successful) due to this disregard. He is using a tactic that was successful for a popular Democratic president, and is clearly targeting working class Republican voters in doing so. What constitutes traditional “conservative doctrine” doesn’t matter, nor should it – all that matters is what his constituents like, and they seem to want to rebuild America the way Trump says he does.