Greg Sargent of WaPo’s Plum Line had an interesting piece this morning, detailing super PAC research on why Trump won (or rather, Hillary lost) in Wisconsin and Michigan. The two main groups of interest were comprised of individuals who voted for Obama then Trump, or voted for Obama but stayed home in 2016.
It’s a rather sobering glimpse of the image problem that democrats have among voters who should arguably be in the base.
Skepticism about the Democratic Party was echoed rather forcefully in the focus groups that I watched. In one, Obama-Trump voters were asked what Democrats stand for today and gave answers such as these:
“The one percent.”
“The status quo.”
“They’re for the party. Themselves and the party.”
One woman, asked whether the Democratic Party is for people like her, flatly declared: “Nope.”
While I remains somewhat incredulous over the amount of snake oil willfully consumed by these people last year, avoiding unpleasant information is ultimately counterproductive. Guy Cecil, the chair of the super PAC who did this research (Priorities USA), gave some advice to the party (emphasis added):
“The second part of the argument must include a real, forward-looking economic plan that does more than rehash the same four policy proposals from the last 20 years. How do we deal with automation and huge company mergers? What do we do to address opportunity deserts in rural and urban areas where real investment is almost impossible to find?”
Good questions, Mr. Cecil.