Did "the economic message not resonate", or is it that we just didn't want to LIE to them?

Here's the rub with trying to "understand" a Trump voter.

Their concerns were portrayed as "primarily economic", right?

What I'm gathering from all the political/news commentators and comments sections was that they wanted someone to tell them their jobs are returning, their talents are necessary, and there would be no need for them to get additional skills to improve their lives (even though they seem to have no issue telling minimum wage earners this . . . over and over and over and over again).

Problem is, the phenomenon of job dearth and labor movement was primarily caused by A) Conservative businesspersons acting ON CHOICE to please major shareholders and cost-cut until they're operating threadbare or close entirely and walk away with millions and/or B) Conservatives getting tax breaks and tax cuts from Republican politicians which allowed them to either offshore jobs to cheaper climes or perform stock buybacks and fire their workers.

In short, they wanted someone to LIE to them, and Orange Lincoln Rockwell was that liar.

There was never a chance that ANY politicians could make jobs return, because they generally don't have the power to do that. Greed, automation and offshore outsourcing ain't going to be put back in their tubes. Their plights center around the conservative businessperson doing what a fiscally conservative businessperson does - look out for #1 (and numbers 2-13, depending on how big their boards are).

See, you cannot tell them this, because THOSE Conservative businesspersons are their HEROES. It's the same reason we have to work so painfully hard to try and convince them of our message as opposed to the other side that "middle America" sees as THEIR ideal.

They see themselves as "one lucky break from BEING Donald Trump" rather than "One missed paycheck from living under a bridge".

THAT'S the problem.

STILL wondering when Americans are going to fall out of love with Republicans.

In May, I posted this.

And after November 8th, I'm still left wondering.

How, after

* Nixon and his tenure of incompetence and illegal shenanigans,
* Tone-Deaf and bumbling Jerry Ford,
* Reagan and all of the scandal and ruin that happened during and because of him,
* Bush Sr and his recession and war,
* documented and data-backed evidence that Republican economic policy leads to awful periods of contraction, stock market crashes and joblessness,
* The obstructionist 104th Gingrich Congress,
* The DimSon and his reign of stupidity, incompetence, war and TWO recessions (the latter being the worst this country had seen in seven decades),
* The obstructionist Boehner and then Ryan Congress,
* Mitch McConnell, just about the most useless Senate leader in Modern American History,

. . . how, after ALL of this, with all of this information and visual evidence at their hands can people STILL be so vexingly in love with Republican politicians? WHY ARE THEY LIKED MORE???

How do they STILL see them as these heroes, these strong leaders who care for their needs? I DON'T have an answer to this. All the narrative control in the world shouldn't hold precedent over your eyes, your bank accounts and your futures.

I'm extremely disappointed in this country. I seriously thought we would grow up and get smarter by now.

You say I'm wrong? Pretty soon, with the control of that precious Judicial branch, the Plutocracy will be complete. They have most of the states, governorships and legislatures. They have the media. They have religion. Corporate America has them. Where am I wrong here?

The worst part about it all is . . . they don't even have to work nearly as hard to convince voters that their side is better as we do with ours. They just get away with selling them hope dope/religious fear. We have to have extensive ground game, county/state strategy, perfect messaging, politicians without an OUNCE of flaw whatsoever, etc. etc. etc.

All they have to do is bring a popular brand name, bring a few wedge issues and cooked-up conspiracies, disguise themselves as a populist and they win. The public believes them without an ounce of question and it's fucking ridiculous that they fall for it.

What cures the economic ills of "Flyover Country"/Middle/Rural America?

Pundits America-wide saw this election as a message that working/rural America has it perpetually awful in life and put their seemingly only chance at opportunity in an "outsider CEO" to be their savior (I'll wait for you to be finished doubled over laughing, but that's one of the narratives being tossed about). The idea was that Trump "had the stronger economic message".

. . . . . . I just read that as he straight up bullshitted his way to the voter's hearts in this area. Giving companies free money in the form of corporate tax cuts will inspire them to lay workers off by the metric ton.

He was never going to "bring jobs back". No one's going to bring jobs back. Corporate greed is a Pandora's box that ain't closing.

Search me how your precious Capitalism survives with no GMI, a chopped social safety net, the entrance fee to higher education being that of a mortgage and too few jobs for the millions of people that need them, but I'm sure the CEO Cabinet will figure it out

You don't really want to ask the people that live in these areas to "move"; that requires money and a job waiting for you, one that isn't always a guaranteed permanent. I'm just not understanding what these people are expecting to happen. I don't see how WE solve this. I don't really have any answers on how they're supposed to be gainfully employed.

The vague buzzwords thrown around by corporate America when asked what America's solution is to ward off an almost-certain bleak economic future . . . "innovation", "education", "information", "New Industries", "high tech businesses" . . . . would those, er, "solutions" ever happen in North Dakota? Iowa? Kansas? Ohio's counties that Hillary didn't win (all but seven)? Rural Pennsylvania?

The thing is, can permanently un/under-employed people "SUPERSIZE THEIR SKILL SET HAW HAW HAW" when they have no income to contribute for training? How does capitalism continue when you have millions of people who y'all won't hire and won't give them a substantial social safety net to even survive? This is expecting an individual solution to a structural problem.

I have YET, YET to hear a coherent and planned answer from a conservative as to how these problems get solved.

Murica, 2016:

CEOs: "BUY MUH STUFF!"
Worker/Consumer: "My wage hasn't increased in inflation adjusted dollars since Disco was popular and I have bills."
CEOs: "BUT MUH PROFITS!"
Worker/Consumer: "Sorry."
CEOs: "You're ungrateful and complain too much. I'm laying you off and automating your job!"
Worker/Consumer: "This isn't fair! We should elect a billionaire who understands our needs!"
U.S. Teabagger Gubmint: "Thanks. We're cutting your social security, destroying the social safety net and lowering taxes on the rich!"
Worker/Consumer: "What the hell?"
U.S. Teabagger Gubmint: "You fucked up. You TRUSTED us! Remember that movie?"
Worker/Consumer: "We need a universal basic income!"
U.S. Teabagger Gubmint: "SOSHULISM? HA HA HA HA HA! Move to Switzerland, Commie!"
Worker/Consumer: "GODDAMN IT! The obvious solution to all this is . . . . to vote for MORE Republicans; they'll screw things up so badly a Progressive Revolution will HAVE to happen!"
1984: Nope.
The Handmaid's Tale: Nope.
V for Vendetta: Nope.
It Can't Happen Here: Nope.
Worker/Consumer: "What am I supposed to do?"
Me: "Maybe wake up and see that there's no value in demonizing people or humanity? Stop making bad voting choices?"
Worker/Consumer: "Now you're just talking crazy, hippie!"
CEOs (to automation): "BUY MUH STUFF?"

MURICA.

My grandfather survived Pearl Harbor. He fought fascists in the European Theater.

How does Kurt Eichenwald, in the same article . . .

. . . get to say: