That frustration and desperation is really common, and drove the support for Obama, the support for Sanders, and the support for Trump as well. That seems counterintuitive and is difficult to understand for those of us that follow politics at all. It seems just absolutely ridiculous that anyone would support Sanders and then support Trump or vote for Obama and then vote for Trump. What sense does that make?
I can remember back in 2008 being surprised at the support that was coming from white blue collar workers for Obama in a very, very conservative rural district. Jokingly, I would say, "but Rush Limbaugh says Obama's a socialist!" The response? "Well, maybe socialism is what we need!" Again, what kind of sense does that make?
From the outside it looks irrational. How does someone go from Obama to Trump, or from Sanders to Trump? But that only seems absurd if you assume people are making ideological choices. A lot of them aren’t. They’re reacting to a sense that the system isn’t working for them.
The average person does not care about nor understand politics the way that we do. They lack the background, the experience, the historical perspective, and there just are not good available sources of reliable information for people.
It is easy for us to say that the sources are out there, that the information is available if only people would look, if only they weren't lazy. But for most people, everything has now collapsed and they struggle to make sense of anything. Hell, I struggle to make sense of anything that's happening now and I work the problem 24/7 and have for over 50 years. The entire country is coming unglued. Trust in institutions has eroded, reliable sources are harder to identify, and people are constantly bombarded with misinformation. Into that vacuum step actors who are very good at exploiting confusion, fear, and resentment.
We laughed at the absurd claims by the mass media that it was "economic anxiety" that drove people to Trump. Obviously, it was racism and sexism that drove people to Trump. But is it also possible that both are true, that in the context of enormous economic pressure and desperation for 80% of the people in the country, that they are then very, very vulnerable to being played upon with the same old racist and misogynist tropes that the demagogues have always used in American politics.
The disconnect I’m describing isn’t really about the public faces of the party. It’s about the layer underneath—the consultants, strategists, major donors, and institutional players who shape what gets said, funded, and prioritized.
Those people operate inside a closed feedback loop. They talk to each other, read the same polling, consume the same media, and reinforce the same assumptions. From inside that loop, things can feel coherent. From the outside, it often looks like they’re not living in the same country as the voters they must reach.
The direction comes from deeper currents—the consultants, donors, and institutional actors who shape the agenda. That ecosystem is highly attuned to its own priorities, but increasingly detached from the lived reality of the people it’s trying to represent.
So this isn’t about Schumer or Jeffries or any single politician. It’s about the ecosystem that determines what candidates are allowed to be—the consultants, donors, and operatives who set the boundaries of acceptable strategy and message.
Most Democratic elected officials are operating in good faith and are decent people. The problem isn’t their intentions—it’s the system they’re operating within.
The people we see—candidates, officeholders—are not the drivers. They’re the visible edge of a much larger system—leaves tossed on the surface of a broiling ocean of money and power politics.
= new reply since forum marked as read