This is a big issue here, and something that I don't feel that many democrats seem to understand. It wasn't a race issue, it was an immigration issue since many illegal immigrants have taken American jobs. It isn't sexist to acknowledge differences in the genders. It isn't islamophobic to see cultural issues with Islam that would cause integration issues, especially with a large influx of Islamic immigration.
Much of the issue here is because of lack of understanding of the perspective of the other side.
This is factually wrong. Immigrants and native workers compete for different low-skilled jobs: http://www.urban.org/urban-wire/immigrant-and-native-workers...
The big issue is the sheer amount of misinformation and falsehoods that the Trump demographic takes as truth. The lack of a good education-- and particularly the lack of a science education-- means most Trump voters are ill-equipped to distinguish fact from feel-good fiction.
People like to parrot Disney at this point but USCIS is closing that loophole.
Why? The law of comparative advantage says we get more productive when we have more trading partners, and the arrival of undocumented workers with limited English skills frees up low-skill American workers who can then specialize in tasks that require better English.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/artcarden/2015/08/28/how-do-ille...
This sums up pretty much every political debate ever.
A better system would be something like approval voting, or condorcet, both described in the above link.
I don't disagree with your point but how many "hard working" Americans want to work the fields and kitchens of the country for low wages? What impact is the removal of cheap labour going to have on the cost of food?
My first two jobs were seasonal work on a potato farm and then working on the line in a packing plant. Neither of them would be available to me, and certainly not at a living wage, with a continuation of open borders.
[0]http://www.businessinsider.com/cost-deporting-undocumented-i...
You know that is emphatically not the kind of statement that people were concerned with when they were talking about Trump's sexism.
What I think is sexist is the outsized hate campaign that has dogged Hillary since she became first lady. She's not notably worse by any metric than John Kerry but she receives way more vitriol.
People were saying she was literally Satan. And Bernie voters were saying she was unacceptable due to being a corrupt sellout establishment candidate, but again... John Kerry didn't receive anywhere near the level of hate.
It's a tough issue to argue though, because I'm not saying it's black and white: I'm not saying haters would've supported her if she was a man. It's more of a matter of degree: the anger and malice toward her would've been less if she was a man. The tenor of people's opposition would've been different.
For that reason I don't think you're awful if you don't believe me. There's enough ambiguity that I think you can say "let's call it an open question and focus on more irrefutable examples of sexism".
But the reason so many women are upset is this is exactly the kind of sexism they face evety day: subtle sexism that is difficult to prove, but when experienced over several decades feels undeniable.
*Edit to those who want to downvote me, please reconsider. I am asking a serious question, not trying to argue for no reason.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/08/politics/donald-trump-cnn-megy...
And here is a long list of examples compiled by the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/donald-trump-sexis...
The only sexism I've seen this election has been from the hillary camp. Wouldn't it be nice to have a female president? wink wink
I'm curious, what jobs have they taken away? This was my father in laws biggest beef next to terrorism. He has been retired for close to a decade and although he is not the 1%, he is for sure in the 2-3%.
I asked him if he was thinking about taking a job at the local car wash or visiting Syria, Afghanistan, or Iraq soon?
I haven't seen a white guy cut my grass or dry my car or roof my house or lay brick or stone in at least 25 years. I actually tried to help the Mexican roofers by carrying a bundle of shingle up the ladder and almost had my wife call 911.
Is there illegal immigrants working as doctors, dentists, data scientists, engineers, nurses, financial professionals, police, fireman, teachers, computer programmers, IT Specialists, etc?
How come a con man who employees illegal immigrants at his construction projects and manufactures his own products in China & Bangladesh is the solution for it?
The truth is, factories will come back to America, but jobs won't. Across all industries, labor is being replaced by automation.
In the next 4 to 8 years, self-driving vehicles will kill millions of driving and trucking jobs. Donald has no solution for it.
That's an odd statement to make because many Clinton voters would have also preferred to vote "against" Clinton rather than "for" Clinton.* They were part of the "Never Trump" crowd. Not pro-Hillary but very anti-Trump.
E: Typo, apologies I didn't catch it before my post delay ran out. `"for" Trump` in my post has been corrected to `"for" Clinton`.
This is incorrect. People stated their support. Poll models just underestimated how many of them would vote.
But you need more than that, you need an inspiring alternative. Telling a bunch of destitute, hopeless rust belt voters that free trade was good, their Obamacare premiums were increasing, a $15 minimum wage and free college tuition was bad, and America was already great didn't motivate them to go to the polls nearly enough. Should be unsurprising, in retrospect.
I think you're mischaracterizing the problem. The racists, sexists, and other ist's/phobic's/whatever had no problem being vocal about it since Trump himself legitimized it.
Rather it was other people like evangelicals who felt guilty but voted for him anyway b/c they are single-issue voters (Supreme Court). Or people who have lost their livelihoods and are desperate for a government that truly represents their interests and doesn't just pay lip service every election.
Effectively there are at least two types of voters in Trump's coalition - ist's/phobic's, and fellow travelers who enable all that bad stuff as a side effect but were voting for other issues entirely. Likely even more complex than that, but the mistake I see the left making is trying to simplify explanations which cannot be simplified. That's just a recipe for losing the next elections too.
In effect, you don't stop people from supporting racism, homophobia, or misogyny by calling attention to it. That only makes them support it quietly. You have to counter it with something. We failed to adequately counter his arguments, content to simply point at them and say that they were racist, sexist, or Islamophobic, because we (naively) assumed that drawing attention to it would be enough.