Of course the Republicans are going to launch a new assault on unions, and it’s going to be devastating. Unions are a key pillar on the left, especially among progressives. It took me a little while to learn this. I grew up in Princeton, New Jersey in a family filled with professors. My progressive values stemmed not from firsthand knowledge of the plight of the coal miner or steel worker or government bureaucrat, nor from any personal experience of being a racial or religious minority, or even a woman. The scientific ethos of academia was my point of entry to opposition to the right-wing in this country. Everyone starts from some place.
When I left my hometown, I moved to Los Angeles where I found an even more diverse community than the one I had grown up in, and one with a wider chasm between the rich and poor. I went on to work for ACORN and expand my knowledge about what the urban poor and minorities face in terms of our criminal justice system, local governance, education, and employment opportunities.
Working with labor was my last stop along the way. I didn’t originally see unions as necessarily my natural allies or see their causes as my causes. There was overlap in many areas, but maybe we didn’t see eye to eye on the importance of the environment, for example. It was only when I realized how essential they were to getting political power that I began to understand that I needed them to be strong and motivated and effective.
It was then that I understood that academic progressives don’t have the option of picking and choosing which labor issues to support, but we need to have their backs so that they’ll have our backs.
When our own Charlie Peters wrote his Neoliberal Manifesto in 1982, he said:
If neo-conservatives are liberals who took a critical look at liberalism and decided to become conservatives, we are liberals who took the same look and decided to retain our goals but to abandon some of our prejudices. We still believe in liberty and justice and a fair chance for all, in mercy for the afflicted and help for the down and out. But we no longer automatically favor unions and big government or oppose the military and big business. Indeed, in our search for solutions that work, we have come to distrust all automatic responses, liberal or conservative.
In retrospect, I don’t think progressives had the option of not automatically favoring unions.
We’ve all seen the statistics. White working class men who are unionized will vote for Democrats. Those who are not unionized favor the right in huge numbers. The Republicans understood this and they went about severing the ties between white working men and their unions.
And then 2016 happened, which brought a collapse of even union household support for the left.
The threat to labor unions and their political power comes after decades of a gradual but steep decline in union membership.
At the same time, union households, once a pillar of the Democratic coalition, are an increasingly inviting target for Republican candidates looking for new votes. In 2008, President Obama won 59 percent of the vote among union households, according to exit polls. In 2016, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton won just 51 percent of those votes.
At the state level, many districts Republicans won in 2016 were driven by votes from working-class people, precisely those most likely to be members of a union.
I’ve called this the Southification of the North because we’ve gone from a Rust Belt split in white working class communities to a complete rout. Counties that have voted Democratic for generations moved over to Trump, and other traditionally red counties went from giving the Dems 35% of the vote to giving them more like 20% of the vote.
It no longer mattered much whether these voters were unionized or not, they had come to the conclusion that the Democratic Party was hostile to them, their culture and their values.
People have explained this as a reaction to deindustrialization. They’ve seen it as a backlash against identity politics and the left’s push for police accountability, gay rights, gun restrictions, and so on. They’ve seen it as an outright racist response to Trump’s prompting for a more traditional white nation. I think it’s all of those things, but it’s also a result of a successful decades-long attack on unions. Unions and union values are what kept these communities divided politically, and they explain why the Northern white working class did not vote like the white working class in the Deep South. In 2016, we reached the tipping point where labor was so weakened that the left lost its foothold and even the pretense of a compelling argument in county after county after county in traditionally blue states.
Now that the left is culturally alienated from these communities, they will be killed off for good.
Republican leaders in New Hampshire, Missouri and Kentucky are planning in the coming months to take up and pass so-called right-to-work measures, allowing workers to opt out of joining a union and out of paying union dues.
Twenty-six states currently have right-to-work laws on the books, and governors-elect in both Missouri and New Hampshire campaigned on pledges to implement those laws in their states.
Those new governors-to-be, along with Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad (R), have hinted that they plan to reform collective bargaining laws as well, similar to a push made by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) five years ago…
…Republicans in Missouri have already filed legislation addressing collective bargaining agreements between the state and public employee unions. Gov. Jay Nixon (D) has vetoed anti-union legislation in the past. But come next year, Nixon, who faced term limits, will be replaced by Gov.-elect Eric Greitens (R)…
Republicans in Iowa, led by Branstad, are considering stripping unions of the right to bargain over employee health insurance. The GOP captured control of the state Senate in November’s elections, giving the party total control of state government.
“Every little piece of good working-place policy that we’ve put in place over the last 20 years, I expect Republicans to begin picking away at,” said Iowa state Rep. Marti Anderson (D). “I expect to have bargaining units be decimated.”
There’s really only one hope for the left in this country, and it’s this:
At the state level, many districts Republicans won in 2016 were driven by votes from working-class people, precisely those most likely to be members of a union.
“Many of the areas where [Republicans] beat incumbents are in working-class districts,” [Joni] Jenkins [a Democratic state representative in Kentucky] said. “A lot of our middle-class voters wanted change because they wanted change, and it’s not getting any better.”
Yesterday, the Washington Post ran an article on the people of in the Buckhannon area of West Virginia. They are excited and hopeful about a Trump presidency, but less pleased that he’s chosen Wilbur Ross as his Secretary of Commerce. Ross was the owner of the local Sago Mine that blew up on January 2nd, 2006. As explained in Wikipedia, “in 2005, the mine was cited by the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) 208 times for violating regulations, up from 68 in 2004. Of those, 96 were considered S&S (significant/serious and substantial).”
Take a look at what Del. Bill Hamilton has to say:
Upshur County’s delegate to the state legislature, Bill Hamilton, calls himself “an oxymoron Republican,” because he’s closely bound to the unions. Like many here, his skepticism of the big businesses that own many mines sits deep in his bones, and the Sago disaster only cemented that doubt. One miner who was killed was Hamilton’s client at his insurance agency, another was his lockermate from junior high school and a third was a family acquaintance.
Hamilton never worked in the mines, warned away by his father, who toiled underground until he was drafted to fight in World War II, and who lost two brothers to mining. Still, he finds himself fervently hoping Trump will reopen the coal fields and invest in technology to diminish the environmental damage. Coal, he said, remains the state’s lifeline.
But although Hamilton came around to Trump after initially supporting Ohio Gov. John Kasich, he wonders if the selection of Ross means Trump might not really be a friend to miners. Hamilton has been pushing Congress to pass a bill to preserve pension benefits that thousands of miners are set to lose next year because so many coal companies have gone belly up.
“Ross bought companies and then severed the benefits to make more profit,” Hamilton said. “So do you think that bill’s going to go anywhere now?”
The Republicans never have been a friend to miners, and they’re only perceived that way right now because the entire industry is collapsing and the GOP says that they can do something about it. At some point, it’s going to become clear that destroying unions and devouring pensions is what’s really on the Trump menu.
But disillusionment will only go so far if these communities perceive that the Democratic Party has written them off, doesn’t care about or even like them, and doesn’t respect their culture or way of life. Unions have traditionally been the way that the Democratic Party has been wedded to these communities politically and culturally, and when they collapse, a lot more collapses with it.
This is a political problem that progressives need to see as existential. And the neoliberal or New Democrat or academic Democrats who serve in affluent lightly unionized suburbs and college towns need to understand that they can’t afford to treat the Labor Movement as some intellectual policy debate.
It seems to me like the Republicans knew exactly what they hoped to achieve by weakening unions, and it went far beyond making the industrial bosses happy. It was how they planned to destroy the left.
Somehow, we allowed ourselves to ignore what was happening and instead have debates about the bureaucratic smugness of public sector unions or the rigidness of education unions or the supposedly unreasonable demands of auto workers.
While we were busy trying to be open-minded and flexible and reality-based, the other side was preparing to hand us our asses.
If you can tell me how to win the Pennsylvania state legislature or control of the U.S. House of Representatives while getting only 20-25% of the vote in most counties and only 51% of the vote in (all) union households, then you should probably start working on cold fusion next.
Things are going to get much worse, and my fear is that they simply will not get better.
The thing is with the laws the way they are union8zing is harder than ever. I think we need to modernize the concept to create a new sense of solidarity alobg woth more traditional unions, but even in success stories like fight for 15, McDonalds is now going to invest in automatic ordering kiosks. So I dont really know the answer.
What’s with this “will”?
In what scenario will any lefty forces in the US ever be in a position to reconstitute themselves? It WILL take something like GOP suicide to make bring about any change. It took the Slave Power committing suicide (starting armed hostilities) to get their grip loosened — if only for a bit.
It may well happen that the GOP will end up doing this in the next couple of years, but my guess is that they will be more or less successful for quite some time, only being stopped when people from other countries intervene at long last.
Hope I’m way off base!
I basically think that’s likely. Especially since most Democrats’s plans including Pelosi’s is basically “wait for self destruction and demography.”
Ruy Texeira needs to be metaphorically shot.
Look to France for how to allow Labor to punch above its weight. But Dems have not shown any appetite for increasing the power of labor in a loooooong time. Not here and not abroad.
I would add that the collapse in Dem support in union households has been visible in the whole Scott Walker era in Wisconsin for example.
But what would be the best way to show they like/respect/care about them and their culture in a way that doesn’t fuck over the existing base and that can get through? Definitely a question I’d like people to focus on though I’ve written my own ideas about it before.
Promise them small, strategically located cross-burnings. With as little press coverage as possible.
That plus union locals impervious to diversity, and friendly to nepotism.
Why are so many analysts making this so hard?
“People vote with their pocketbook.” QED.
This WAS the pitchfork vote. Gotta expect some carnage on all sides. They are just hoping not to be the only ones to bleed.
Except when they don’t.
Like last month.
But they did vote with their pocketbook.
The have seen their way of life disappear – one candidate from the outside said he felt their pain, promised them jobs and to make them feel great again and the other candidate aligned with insiders and Wall Street told them everything wasn’t that bad and just needed policy tweaks.
You can argue that the message was BS but it was the message they wanted to hear and it spoke more to their pocketbooks.
They said “He hates the same people I hate — hand me the goddam ballot.” And they voted.
That’s it. Period.
Bradley Delong went back and looked at the Peters essay sometime ago, and I wound up re-reading as well.
He was struck by the lack of appreciation for what he termed “intermediary institutions”. By that he meant organizations that restrained capital. This lack of appreciation meant neo-liberalism was made an unwitting accomplice in the conservative war on government.
Labor unions screamed that trade deals would kill them. To neo-liberals at the time this sounded like pure self-interest – the sort of self-interest that offended the good government instincts of people like Peters.
Whether this matters is unclear since union decline has declined in tandem with manufacturing, but make no mistake. The power of unions is pretty irreplaceable for liberals.
Something Peters did not fully appreciate.
German neoliberalism manage to hang on to a lot of those institutional methods of restraining capitalism–many illustrated by us in the 30-40s.
German ordoliberalism is not quite the same creature as 1980’s-era US neoliberalism.[1]
[1] 2010’s-era neoliberalism is ‘neoliberalism’, an empty term of abuse that means whatever you want it to.
….still trying to edit the vocabulary of any discussion of class or exploitation. Every iteration is impossible to contextualize. Every day a blank slate.
I have tried to make this point before.
The neo-liberalism of Peters, and Hart is very different what we call neo-liberalism today. One is based on the classic definition of liberalism in the Political Scientist sense, the other is based on the US definition of liberalism which included some social democratic components.
Though some of their programs overlap they are actually quite different.
Please expand on this. Find a program and illustrate how the two era’s would differ in their program’s nuts and bolts. Like public school vouchers/charter schools…
A little background. Most of the neo-liberals came from the Anti-Vietnam War movement. Gary Hart ran Indiana for Robert Kennedy and George McGovern’s campaign. Most accepted and supported defense of the environment as a cornerstone. They were strong supporters of renewable energy.
More broadly, they favored an industrial policy. Some termed them Atari Democrats – an outgrowth of the symbiosis between the rise of Silicon Valley and the cultural liberalism that defined it.
They did not, as far as I can remember, support something like Welfare Reform.
But their history set them in opposition to labor unions. Part of this was a product of the Vietnam War, part of the Civil Rights movement. So there were suspicions that date back to the Chrysler bailout and the deregulation of the trucking and airline industries.
This tension defined the ’84 race for the nomination.
They were NOT DLC Democrats. They certainly were opposed to the more cold war positions one saw in the TNR. At the time Washington Monthly was a favorite of mine. The Nation was to my left, and the TNR had in the 80’s gone too far right.
My own journey away from the group began with Nafta and Welfare Reform, the latter of which I regard as a cave to racist politics. But I would still argue that the Neo-liberals of the early 80’s represented something different than Clinton embodied or that the DLC came to embody.
So we don’t have much in concrete examples of how they might have engineered programs, unless it was expressed in state leges. Not a lot of Public/Private/Partnerships? Carter’s transportation deregulations would have been a clue.
By Clinton’s time, it had become what we see today.
Thanks.
things will never get better, Booman.
This country, as it previously existed, is done.
I am doubtful there will even be an election in 2020.
You know, that trip to Guatemala (another libertarian paradise) was only going to be for a year. But I am now considering checking out other countries while I am in central America and finding a nice place to stay and a nice local girl to marry.
Thoughtful and detailed analysis by Mr Longman as always, and thanks for a lot of great writing at Washington Monthly. For a slightly different historical perspective, we can look all the way back to the late ’60s and early ’70s, when white southern voters defected en masse from the Democratic party, post President Johnson’s embrace of civil rights legislation. At that time, it really looked like the Dems would be a permanent minority party, with the short exception when a Southerner, Carter, was president for a single term.
Republican efforts to diminish the role of trade unions have been ongoing for decades, and along with that, the wholesale loss of manufacturing jobs, and the union membership that goes with it, have more or less spelled the end of political relevance for organized labor. And just as the Democratic party eventually adapted to a new demographic landscape in the last half of the 20th century, so it will again. What direction or focus will enable that rebirth or re-labelling remains to be seen, although it’s pretty clear that since Republican efforts to appeal to white grievance politics have evolved from the dog whistle level to being out front and open, thanks to Trump, the Democrats may increasingly appeal to their own identity politics in a rapidly changing racial demographic.
I may be a Japanese guy sitting here typing in a left-leaning bastion town in Oregon, but I’ve lived and worked in the Red zones most of my life, and I have some bit of insight into what factors into the motivations of white middle American politics; although it’s necessarily anecdotal, not scientific. Sure, racism (been exposed to a lot of that, quite openly) enters into it, and its corollary feeling that their culture, such as it is, is under assault by societal changes in attitudes re gays, non-whites, and urban free thinkers. Also, being raised in conservative Pentacostal churches predisposes them toward uncritical acceptance of whatever viewpoint is being espoused by authority figures, whether clergy, demagogue politicians, or talk radio.
But underlying all that, it’s entirely possible that a big chunk of the population of America may be being slowly poisoned by a combination of maintenance doses of pharmaceuticals, particularly synthetic opioids, plus alcohol and other substance abuse, along with a woefully inadequate diet, heavy on highly processed foods. It makes sense that it would be hard to make critical decisions thoughtfully when you’re not in very good health overall. Us city hipsters preparing tasty home cooked meals and being critical about our health care choices, and the ethnic immigrant communities with their unique cuisines that the food industry hasn’t been able to co-opt yet, are relatively immune to these effects.
Hey, you know, a lot of people are saying…
The seventieth anniversary of Taft-Hartley — passed over a Democratic president’s veto — is coming up
The efforts have been ongoing for generations.
It’s a twofer: loss of advantage with union households and fewer union households. Just the facts:
2000:
% of voters – 26%
Gore: 59%
Bush: 37%
2004:
% of voters: 24%
Kerry: 59%
Bush: 40%
2008:
% of voters: 21%
Obama: 59%
McCain: 39%
2012:
% of voters: 18%
Obama: 58%
Romney: 40%
2016: (preliminary)
% of voters: ???
Clinton: 52%
Trump: 44%
If not for public employee union households, the numbers would be more dismal. Private sector unions participation rates have been declining since the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947. (Truman’s veto was over-ridden.) There’s real method in the madness of Scott Walker going after unionized teachers. Not surprising that private sector workers with low pay, poor benefits, and no job security would resent public employees that earn good salaries with good benefits and enjoy a higher measure of job security.
Public unions will die with whoever Trump nominates to SCOTUS. If not for Scalia’s death, that would have already been a reality.
He’s also looking at Andrew Puzder for Secretary of Labor, and GOP might go fishing for some “civil service reforms”.
Teachers’ unions are also digging their own grave in Chicago.
What unions need to consider is:
The pension thing is a union killer. Because it is what people point to as the “elitists with their pensions”. Pensions are dead. People need to start rethinking the approach.
I don’t have a pension. If I had stayed at one institution, I would have one.
Unfunded pension obligations are probably the #1 reason why unions have been attacked at the state level, don’t you think? States cannot run deficits and 30-odd yrs of tax receipts on stagnant worker incomes have put them in a hole. Govt unions are the final bastions of labor, imo.
Unfunded pension obligations are a horrible situation. The state of IL is basically in the toilet due to this terrible thing. Here is my prediction: In 4 years, when IL must begin to pay some of those, IL is going to go red. Because the pension obligations will be put on property taxes which are already the highest in the country. IL is a terrible place right now, and I say that a person who grew up there and lived there as my children became adults. Thank god I’m not there now.
RI is also in terrible shape. KY, CT, state after state.
The pension idea is done.
Gov. Rauner’s approval rating has hovered around 34% for most of the time he has been in office, so this is a real plus for the Dems. However, IL is changing somewhat as the “Southernization” moves north. Here’s a quote from the Chicago Tribune:
“In this light, Illinois is almost blindingly blue, despite the geographical split that had Trump winning 91 of 102 counties, mostly downstate.
But an overall purple tint begins to emerge when you break out results for the state legislative races in districts that were contested, meaning districts where voters actually had a choice between Democratic and Republican candidates.
In the 47 state House districts in which a Democrat and Republican appeared on the November ballot, Democrats won just 50.6 percent of the votes cast for a major-party candidate and won only 22 of those races (46.8 percent).
In the 13 state Senate districts in which a Democrat and Republican appeared on the ballot, Republicans won 51.5 percent of the vote but won only six of those races (46.2 percent).”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-illinois-election-results-red-blue-rauner-zorn-pe
rspec-1207-jm-20161206-column.html
I grew up in the Chicago suburbs. This area was predominently Republican in counter to Dem Chicago.
I lived 1997-2009 in the Metro East, the IL suburbs of St Louis. This area was fairly Dem until recently. IL-12 was held by a “blue dog” Jerry Costello for a number of years. It has now become a Republican district.
IL is Dem ONLY due to the size of Chicago. Ds cannot win in the Metro East, in Rockford, in Champaign-Urbana (U of IL, at least 35K student voters), or anywhere outside of Chicago.
The collar counties (counties which surround Cook County, the Chicago county) of Lake, Dupage, Kane, McHenry and Will are the real story. If these go bluish, the state is blue. If these go somewhat red, Bruce Rauner (millionaire businessman and Trump-like guy) becomes gov.
When the pension issue is brought to a head, as it will begin to be soon, the property taxes of homeowners will be the source of funds. Already IL has the highest property tax in the US. Taxes will double.
Pensions of teachers, public employees and so forth are going to be blamed, although the real issue is long-term unfunding. But the state will tilt red.
From the Neo-Liberal Manifesto: “We have found these responses not only weren’t helping but were often hampering us in confronting the problems that were beginning to cripple the nation in the 1970s: declining productivity; the closed factories and potholed roads that betrayed decaying plant and infrastructure; inefficient and unaccountable public agencies that were eroding confidence in government; a military with too many weapons that didn’t work and too few people from the upper classes in its ranks; and a politics of selfishness symbolized by an explosion of political action committees devoted to the interests of single groups.”
Well, neoliberalism sure fixed all that!
Whoever wrote that “Manifesto” wasn’t around in 1970s. Sounds like some revisionist history – U.S. wasn’t in bad shape at all back then, far from it. Took a few years after Nixon’s visit to China, until it started unraveling. But heck, I forget – we’re in the “post truth” era now; make your own facts to fit your assumptions.
People often buy-in that the alternative will be better. Forgetting that the alternative had already been tried and was worse.
We should also probably not neglect the damage that resulted from George Meany assuming control of the industrial workers. The untimely death of Walter Reuther eliminated his major competition. (His other opponent, Hoffa, was taken down in ’64, incarcerated in ’67, released in ’71 when Nixon commuted his sentence, and disappeared in ’75 (assumed to have been done in by his mob affiliates).)
LOL Unions leaders bought by mobsters back then; owned by DNC establishment these days… How many of the leadership were unable to deliver their membership to HC?
Andrew Sterns was such a sterling example. He was a visionary alright.
I knew a pretty good Missouri political consultant who said neo-liberalism in the early 80’s was essentially “New and Improved”
Worth remember Robert Reich was one.
Yep. He was not impervious to evidence, however.
So we gave up on unions and big government in favor of more guns and large corps. Sounds like a winner – almost. Now we have huge corps and never ending wars. Still got big government. Doesn’t do much really useful to sentient beings but we got it. Now we can work on eliminating that.
It occurs to me that republicans are like a disease. It just sort of hangs around and when conditions are just right they strike. Once they strike, like now for all sorts of things, they are gone forever or a very long time. How do we fight back?
Martin,
Appreciate the sobering news. It deepens my resolve to somehow play a role in putting labor and labor issues at the forefront of the Democratic Party where I live in Oregon. Went to my first meeting – Washington County Dems Platform Committee.
It’s a new thing doing activism from within the Dem Party but the work of community building is not.
You know what would be helpful here in this forum from your posts or commenters, would be groups/people to reach out to so that I don’t recreate the wheel with advocating for labor within the party. I can do my own research too but anything that people have to offer here would be appreciated.
I don’t know what kind of impact one person can have in sluggish organization that still doesn’t know why it lost, but I have to try. Will be glad to share my experiences with anybody who is interested. I’m on FB here – https://www.facebook.com/patrick.briggs.583 . Or by email at pbriggs (at) greeneggsandham.org
Thanks as always Martin for your blog.
Regards,
Patrick
I am in my mid fifties. For my entire adult life, the republican party has been openly hostile to unions. In the last decade or so I’ve seen states like Wisconsin, Michigan(!), and Ohio elect and re-elect republican governors who immediately go to work destroying unions. What kind of cognitive dissonance is at work there? I have been in a union for 20 years now and I would never vote republican because their history is there in the open for all to see. WTF with these people?
Yes,
Far to much of this,
Teamster object to Obama reassessing pipeline route
Someone said ‘people vote their pocketbook’. Well, not everyone.
.
“The Republicans never have been a friend to miners, and they’re only perceived that way right now because the entire industry is collapsing and the GOP says that they can do something about it. At some point, it’s going to become clear that destroying unions and devouring pensions is what’s really on the Trump menu.”
That has already happened. When the Union allowed 2 tier hiring and gave up the nationwide strike, the writing was on the wall. The Peabody/Patriot ruling allowed the shedding of pension and healthcare obligations. The whole War on Coal, was a war on wages. Employment was up under Obama until fracking gas glut. Now that is cycling out and employment is increasing. But not Union mines, what few are left.
They will wake up when the McConnell scuttles the deal to save the health benefits because its “union” and Trump Admin does nothing.
But for areas in WV where hiring is increasing and mines opening, wages are rising. Not enough local experienced miners are around who can pass a drug test. You would think this might be a good time for Union recruitment, but nope. Its dead. They aren’t even trying. Fat and happy with a shrinking membership. Why rock the boat.
Now the National Left debate is all about doing away with the Electoral College and go to with direct election of President. If you want a political party absolutely alienated from the non-metro area population; that is the way. Because they will have no reason to even try.
R
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/08/16/he
alth-and-pension-benefits-to-coal-retirees-are-hampered-by-disabled-companies-and-dirty-politics
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/10/umwa-retirement-pensions-health-care
Booman sez: “But disillusionment will only go so far if these communities perceive that the Democratic Party has written them off, doesn’t care about or even like them, and doesn’t respect their culture or way of life. Unions have traditionally been the way that the Democratic Party has been wedded to these communities politically and culturally, and when they collapse, a lot more collapses with it.”
What are the culture and way of life that Democrats don’t like or respect? Some comments above imply this is all about racism, guns, and…well, some other unsavory qualities, I guess. But wait a second: there were a hell of a lot of working class communities that voted for Barack Obama before they voted for Donald Trump. Were those voters always bigots, and just woke up and realized what Obama looks like?
I’m perplexed.
One other thing. I hope I’m not naïve, but how did we go from “the GOP is dying” to “the GOP is a rampant, voracious indestructible monster” in less than 2 months?
What do Bernie, Obama, and Trump have, that Hillary doesn’t?
What changed in two months?
Trump turned Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania into Alabama. That’s what happened.
Folks I know at Penn State and in Harrisburg have told me for years that “Pennsylvania is Philadephia in the east, Pittsburgh in the west, and Alabama in between.”
I do understand the statistics you’ve been showing us, Booman. What I am still skeptical about is the implication that the flip to Trump in 2016 is permanent. If that’s right, then we are indeed totally fucked…and I can’t quite fathom how you imagine your career path.