[blackshoe]

Sir Isaac Newton, a Venerian dragon, to Jubal Harshaw: So how did your "noble experiment" go?
Jubal Harshaw: You mean Prohibition? We repealed it.
Sir Isaac: I was referring to your form of government.
---- Robert Heinlein, The Number of the Beast.

[Gerben42]

I somehow fail to grasp the sheer size of the US election for president. What confuses me most are two things:

• lower middle class and below voting republican
• the huge willingness of people to give their hard earned money to support the campaign of their preferred candidate.

[Zelandakh]

Gerben42, on 2015-September-22, 04:16, said:

I somehow fail to grasp the sheer size of the US election for president. What confuses me most are two things:

• lower middle class and below voting republican
• the huge willingness of people to give their hard earned money to support the campaign of their preferred candidate.

There is a long tradition in the Southern states of voting for the GOP. I think it is a combination of doing what the parents did, religion and fear/intolerance of other groups. There is a reason why this part of the country is known as the Bible Belt. Note that one could say similar things about the voting pattern in Bavaria concerning the CSU. This is something that seems to happen in almost every democratic country.

In America there seems to be no stigma attached to money buying political influence. If an oil company donates a few million they can expect to get that back many times over in relaxed regulation and tax breaks. Similarly for other groups. They just seem to have a different mentality on this to us.

[kenberg]

Gerben42, on 2015-September-22, 04:16, said:

I somehow fail to grasp the sheer size of the US election for president. What confuses me most are two things:

• lower middle class and below voting republican
• the huge willingness of people to give their hard earned money to support the campaign of their preferred candidate.

Let me take a stab at the first. It's important because the Dems haven't come up with an answer either.


Let me create a fantasy family, fairly common, and not worry too much about whether this is middle class or lower middle class.
Fantasy: Husband, wife, two kids in elementary school. The guy works full time, sometimes with overtime. The woman has a part time job and takes care of the kids after they get home frfom school. They are renting, but saving hoping maybe to buy a house. Vacations are infrequent, and consist of camping in a state park or driving to and staying with relatives. The kids sometimes act up, sometimes don't do their homework, but they haven't failed anything (yet). And, no doubt relevant, they are white.


OK, The Dems explain that we really have to help the poor single mother. We have to close the achievement gap and sometimes it sounds as if they really don't care whether this is done by blacks doing better or whites doing worse. (Not a complete fantasy, I was once at a talk about data showing boys had done worse than in the past on a standardized math test and the guy mentioned that this had narrowed then boy-girl achievement gap. I don't think he was joking.). Also we have to help the gay community and the trans-gender community. We have to help Latinos. The sub-text is that the white working class, married and bringing up their kids, are the enemy.

You might say this is a mis-perception on their part and perhaps it is, but mis-perceptions are usually based on at least some reality, stretched out a bit. The American liberal base has changed a lot since I was a child and there are a lot of votes out there for the party that figures out how to address the needs, hopes and frustrations of the fantasy family described above. Portraying them as selfish, or stupid, because they are enjoying some modest success that others have not achieved is not the way to their vote.


I vote Dem, or at least usually. There are a lot of reasons for this but economic self-interest is not paramount, I am not rich, not at all, but I do not foresee any financial problems. I don't need, or even want, a yacht. I probably would head off to Paris for a while if I had some spare cash but hiking in the Shenandoah is fine. So, at this time of life, I vote mostly on what seems best for the country. I think Dems are more aligned with my values, although there are times that I wonder. I expect the fantasy family above would wonder about this alignment, or lack of it, more often.

This is the best I can offer but I think that there is something to it.

[Al_U_Card]

Gerben42, on 2015-September-22, 04:16, said:

I somehow fail to grasp the sheer size of the US election for president. What confuses me most are two things:

• lower middle class and below voting republican
• the huge willingness of people to give their hard earned money to support the campaign of their preferred candidate.

European society comes from a legacy of structure (autocratic, land-owning legacies), compression (many living in limited space) and negotiation (rules and regs.)
US society comes from a legacy of "freedom" (wild west syndrome), expansion (there is always a frontier into which you can grow) and coercion (might makes right and I have a gun...)

The "American Dream" explains both of your questions to a certain degree. It is, as you state, a case of mentality and what the individual believes in rather than a rational (and sensible) weighing of alternatives and repercussions.

[Gerben42]

Thanks for the answers it makes at least the first question a bit more logical. As for the second I get that companies want influence on politicians we have that here too. If you want to understand government policies just follow the money. In Germany VW won't get this much trouble over the tests in fact they have probably made sure they are legal here.

As for the second question if you would ask Germans (or probably other Europeans) so donate for campaigns the top 5 answers would be:

No
Are you nuts?
They don't need money they earn X times what I do
I already pay too much taxes
Hahaha you're funny

[cherdano]

There is so much less at stake in a German election than in a US election. I know a hardcore social democrats supporter would be devastated at election night if the CDU gets an absolute majority. But a few days later, he would be over it. After all, what is going to change? Maybe a few minor changes about co-pays or referal rules for specialist doctors? Maybe changes to payments for long-term unemployed? Oops sorry, that was done by the social democrats themselves!

Noone has to worry about the dangers of millions of others suddenly getting health insurance, about not getting a big tax cut (since they won't get one either way, sorry FDP!), or about abortion becoming illegal after a new supreme court appointment.

[mikeh]

kenberg, on 2015-September-22, 05:18, said:

Let me take a stab at the first. It's important because the Dems haven't come up with an answer either.


Let me create a fantasy family, fairly common, and not worry too much about whether this is middle class or lower middle class.
Fantasy: Husband, wife, two kids in elementary school. The guy works full time, sometimes with overtime. The woman has a part time job and takes care of the kids after they get home frfom school. They are renting, but saving hoping maybe to buy a house. Vacations are infrequent, and consist of camping in a state park or driving to and staying with relatives. The kids sometimes act up, sometimes don't do their homework, but they haven't failed anything (yet). And, no doubt relevant, they are white.


OK, The Dems explain that we really have to help the poor single mother. We have to close the achievement gap and sometimes it sounds as if they really don't care whether this is done by blacks doing better or whites doing worse. (Not a complete fantasy, I was once at a talk about data showing boys had done worse than in the past on a standardized math test and the guy mentioned that this had narrowed then boy-girl achievement gap. I don't think he was joking.). Also we have to help the gay community and the trans-gender community. We have to help Latinos. The sub-text is that the white working class, married and bringing up their kids, are the enemy.

You might say this is a mis-perception on their part and perhaps it is, but mis-perceptions are usually based on at least some reality, stretched out a bit. The American liberal base has changed a lot since I was a child and there are a lot of votes out there for the party that figures out how to address the needs, hopes and frustrations of the fantasy family described above. Portraying them as selfish, or stupid, because they are enjoying some modest success that others have not achieved is not the way to their vote.


I vote Dem, or at least usually. There are a lot of reasons for this but economic self-interest is not paramount, I am not rich, not at all, but I do not foresee any financial problems. I don't need, or even want, a yacht. I probably would head off to Paris for a while if I had some spare cash but hiking in the Shenandoah is fine. So, at this time of life, I vote mostly on what seems best for the country. I think Dems are more aligned with my values, although there are times that I wonder. I expect the fantasy family above would wonder about this alignment, or lack of it, more often.

This is the best I can offer but I think that there is something to it.

I can see why your fantasy family would have a tough time accepting the Democratic agenda as you portray it (and I know you are not suggesting that it is as simplistic as that), but that is only part of the issue. That explains why many not-rich whites don't vote Democratic, but doesn't directly explain the biggest mystery (to me) of US politics: why they vote for a party that is run by and for the rich. The republican party, at least in terms of the elected representatives, almost uniformly supports measures that have, over the past 35 years, created the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the world. In an era of ever-increasing productivity and profitability for US business, the middle class and below have seem real incomes stagnate or drop, while the upper class (and the US is absolutely a class-divided country now, just in a different way than the old European ones were), has become extraordinarily rich.

This has been accomplished by massive tax breaks for the wealthy, justified by what used to be called voodoo economics...the patently false notion of trickle down economics. This has likely been cemented in place by the Citizens United travesty, which took a very valuable legal fiction (that corporations are in some senses 'people') and twisted it into giving corporations rights that they have no business (pardon the pun) having...allowing even vaster quantities of cash to distort the democratic process. Join this with the utterly bogus idea that PACS and SUPER-PACS are unrelated to the candidates or parties they endorse, and you get the US system.

It is no surprise that republicans have an open agenda to destroy higher-education for almost all but the children of the wealthy. I know some people who went to high school and/or university in the US, and the tales they tell of the ignorance of most of their fellow students would be amusing if it weren't frightening. Under-educated children....children taught fantasies rather than history, children taught that religion is more reliable than science....turn into ignorant adults, easily indoctrinated by glitzy ads and the liars of Fox News.

I think that the gullibility of the typical white middle or lower class voter is exemplified by the joke that was circulating a few years ago. A trade unionist, a rich man, and a tea party member sat down for coffee. There was a plate of 12 cookies on the table. The wealthy person took 11 of them and then warned the tea party member to watch out: the union guy was going to try to steal the last cookie.

We are not perfect in Canada...not even close....and we have some of the same issues. I often think that one of the reasons we don't have quite the same egregious problems is that we are a far smaller country, and the pot which the rich wish to take for themselves is smaller...the stakes are smaller. I also think that our traditions are far more European than American, in terms of the notion that we are citizens in a society, rather than individuals seeing all others as the competition.

[kenberg]

mikeh, on 2015-September-22, 09:34, said:

I can see why your fantasy family would have a tough time accepting the Democratic agenda as you portray it (and I know you are not suggesting that it is as simplistic as that), but that is only part of the issue. That explains why many not-rich whites don't vote Democratic, but doesn't directly explain the biggest mystery (to me) of US politics: why they vote for a party that is run by and for the rich. The republican party, at least in terms of the elected representatives, almost uniformly supports measures that have, over the past 35 years, created the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the world. In an era of ever-increasing productivity and profitability for US business, the middle class and below have seem real incomes stagnate or drop, while the upper class (and the US is absolutely a class-divided country now, just in a different way than the old European ones were), has become extraordinarily rich.

This has been accomplished by massive tax breaks for the wealthy, justified by what used to be called voodoo economics...the patently false notion of trickle down economics. This has likely been cemented in place by the Citizens United travesty, which took a very valuable legal fiction (that corporations are in some senses 'people') and twisted it into giving corporations rights that they have no business (pardon the pun) having...allowing even vaster quantities of cash to distort the democratic process. Join this with the utterly bogus idea that PACS and SUPER-PACS are unrelated to the candidates or parties they endorse, and you get the US system.

It is no surprise that republicans have an open agenda to destroy higher-education for almost all but the children of the wealthy. I know some people who went to high school and/or university in the US, and the tales they tell of the ignorance of most of their fellow students would be amusing if it weren't frightening. Under-educated children....children taught fantasies rather than history, children taught that religion is more reliable than science....turn into ignorant adults, easily indoctrinated by glitzy ads and the liars of Fox News.

I think that the gullibility of the typical white middle or lower class voter is exemplified by the joke that was circulating a few years ago. A trade unionist, a rich man, and a tea party member sat down for coffee. There was a plate of 12 cookies on the table. The wealthy person took 11 of them and then warned the tea party member to watch out: the union guy was going to try to steal the last cookie.

We are not perfect in Canada...not even close....and we have some of the same issues. I often think that one of the reasons we don't have quite the same egregious problems is that we are a far smaller country, and the pot which the rich wish to take for themselves is smaller...the stakes are smaller. I also think that our traditions are far more European than American, in terms of the notion that we are citizens in a society, rather than individuals seeing all others as the competition.

I will take just one thing, for now:

"It is no surprise that republicans have an open agenda to destroy higher-education for almost all but the children of the wealthy." Do they?


I live in Maryland. When I cam in 1967 Agnew was gove. Ehrlich was gove for four years, and Hogan was recently leceted. These are the three Reublicans, the rest were Democrats. The leislature has, I am retty sure, always been controlled by the Dems. Heavily so.

I looked u the tuition at the university of Maryland. https://www.admissions.umd.edu/costs/
Just under $10,000 for a year.

I went to the University of Minnesota, starting in 1956. The tuition was a little over $200 er year. (We were on a quarter system and, as I recall, it was $73 for each of the three quarters.

I worked at various jobs with the ay ranging from $1.25 to $2.00 an hour. Even with the lower figure, the cost is manageable. Five weeks at full time more than covers it. (I had a scholarship, so this complicates the story, but only slightly since of course most students did not.)

Perhaps a student today can get a job for $10 an hour. That's a thousand hours of work, half a normal work year, just to pay the tuition..Maybe they can make $12. Some maybe $15. Still tough.

I am thinking here of the youngster whose parents will not be paying tuition, as was the case with me.

This is a problem, a serious one. Loans? Given the magnitude, it is sort of like indentured servitude.

I can find partial explanations for this change in affordability but I doubt anyone can explain it completely. Saying that it's all the fault of those damn Republicans seems too easy to me.

Democrats definitely lose the votes of many people that we might expect would be, and once were, in their corner. Just why is a good question, but the phenomenon is so widespread that the answer might not be simple. Stories instead of history? Sure, in the 1940s I learned about Washington and the cherry tree. And the shot heard round the world. And Paul Revere. And that I should check under my bed to see if a commie was hiding there. (ok, the last is a joke). Etc. It didn't make me a Republican. I don't think that's where the answer lies.

[Trinidad]

mikeh, on 2015-September-22, 09:34, said:

I can see why your fantasy family would have a tough time accepting the Democratic agenda as you portray it (and I know you are not suggesting that it is as simplistic as that), but that is only part of the issue. That explains why many not-rich whites don't vote Democratic, but doesn't directly explain the biggest mystery (to me) of US politics: why they vote for a party that is run by and for the rich.

So, Ken's fantasy family (FF) has a tough choice: Vote Democrat so the "single moms" catch up with us or vote Republican so the "wealthy whites" can accelerate away from us.

So, in practice, many FF's vote with their emotions. Many will feel that the "wealthy whites" have worked hard to get wealthy. They will also know about the American Dream: If we work hard, we (or at least our kids) will get wealthy too. And no one (particularly not "the government") should take that wealth away from us, since we earned it the hard way!

Rik

[Winstonm]

Zelandakh, on 2015-September-22, 05:08, said:

There is a long tradition in the Southern states of voting for the GOP. I think it is a combination of doing what the parents did, religion and fear/intolerance of other groups. There is a reason why this part of the country is known as the Bible Belt. Note that one could say similar things about the voting pattern in Bavaria concerning the CSU. This is something that seems to happen in almost every democratic country.

In America there seems to be no stigma attached to money buying political influence. If an oil company donates a few million they can expect to get that back many times over in relaxed regulation and tax breaks. Similarly for other groups. They just seem to have a different mentality on this to us.

The "long tradition of the southern states voting for the GOP" happens to coincide with LBJ's signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and his comment made at that time, "There goes the South for a generation." Prior to 1964, the South had been predominantly Democratic.

[billw55]

Government by the rich is by no means exclusive to the Rs. And Government by Ds is not an automatic ticket to economic utopia. In my state, Illinois, Ds have the run the show for decades and yet the state is in one of the worst financial messes in the nation.

To me it is pretty much team A and team B, and not really much difference for the people. Rich folks buy influence from both parties, even Trump admits as much.

[PassedOut]

billw55, on 2015-September-22, 12:27, said:

Government by the rich is by no means exclusive to the Rs. And Government by Ds is not an automatic ticket to economic utopia. In my state, Illinois, Ds have the run the show for decades and yet the state is in one of the worst financial messes in the nation.

To me it is pretty much team A and team B, and not really much difference for the people. Rich folks buy influence from both parties, even Trump admits as much.

Yes, it costs a great deal to win an election these days, so both major parties depend upon those willing to invest money in their candidates. Those who invest expect a return.

[kenberg]

billw55, on 2015-September-22, 12:27, said:

Government by the rich is by no means exclusive to the Rs. And Government by Ds is not an automatic ticket to economic utopia. In my state, Illinois, Ds have the run the show for decades and yet the state is in one of the worst financial messes in the nation.

To me it is pretty much team A and team B, and not really much difference for the people. Rich folks buy influence from both parties, even Trump admits as much.

Actually Trump brags about it. And about everything else.

But to your main point:
Often candidates seem to be far away from me. I do vote, I vote every election. I don't regard myself as super-weird. So it seems that there are votes to be had for someone who can get past catering to money and to demographic strategies. But I wish in vain.

[y66]

Why do poor people vote Republican?

Quote

The first thing to note is that most of them don't. In 2008 73% of those who earned less than $15,000, 60% of those who earned between $15,000 and $30,000, and 55% of those who earned between $30,000 and $50,000 voted for Obama.

Of those who do vote Republican, race, religious beliefs and ignorance are apparently bigger factors than economic self interest. For example, 70 percent of white non-Hispanic evangelicals self identify as Republicans or leaning Republican vs 19 percent Democrat and the rest do not lean either way. In a Public Mind poll earlier this year, 51 percent of Republicans said they believe it to be “definitely true” or “probably true” that American forces found an active weapons of mass destruction program in Iraq vs 32 percent of Democrats.

Quote

The truly shocking thing about income and voting patterns in the US isn't the number of poor people who vote Republican but the number who don't vote at all. Inequality in income is intimately related to inequality in turnout. In 2008, 41% of voters who earn less than $10,000 voted; among those who earn more than $150,000 the figure was 78%.

Sources: Working class voters: why America's poor are willing to vote Republican and Pew Research Center.

[Winstonm]

mikeh, on 2015-September-22, 09:34, said:

I can see why your fantasy family would have a tough time accepting the Democratic agenda as you portray it (and I know you are not suggesting that it is as simplistic as that), but that is only part of the issue. That explains why many not-rich whites don't vote Democratic, but doesn't directly explain the biggest mystery (to me) of US politics: why they vote for a party that is run by and for the rich. The republican party, at least in terms of the elected representatives, almost uniformly supports measures that have, over the past 35 years, created the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the world. In an era of ever-increasing productivity and profitability for US business, the middle class and below have seem real incomes stagnate or drop, while the upper class (and the US is absolutely a class-divided country now, just in a different way than the old European ones were), has become extraordinarily rich.

This has been accomplished by massive tax breaks for the wealthy, justified by what used to be called voodoo economics...the patently false notion of trickle down economics. This has likely been cemented in place by the Citizens United travesty, which took a very valuable legal fiction (that corporations are in some senses 'people') and twisted it into giving corporations rights that they have no business (pardon the pun) having...allowing even vaster quantities of cash to distort the democratic process. Join this with the utterly bogus idea that PACS and SUPER-PACS are unrelated to the candidates or parties they endorse, and you get the US system.

It is no surprise that republicans have an open agenda to destroy higher-education for almost all but the children of the wealthy. I know some people who went to high school and/or university in the US, and the tales they tell of the ignorance of most of their fellow students would be amusing if it weren't frightening. Under-educated children....children taught fantasies rather than history, children taught that religion is more reliable than science....turn into ignorant adults, easily indoctrinated by glitzy ads and the liars of Fox News.

I think that the gullibility of the typical white middle or lower class voter is exemplified by the joke that was circulating a few years ago. A trade unionist, a rich man, and a tea party member sat down for coffee. There was a plate of 12 cookies on the table. The wealthy person took 11 of them and then warned the tea party member to watch out: the union guy was going to try to steal the last cookie.

We are not perfect in Canada...not even close....and we have some of the same issues. I often think that one of the reasons we don't have quite the same egregious problems is that we are a far smaller country, and the pot which the rich wish to take for themselves is smaller...the stakes are smaller. I also think that our traditions are far more European than American, in terms of the notion that we are citizens in a society, rather than individuals seeing all others as the competition.

I think this might answer some of your questions.

Quote

[Gov.]Brownback, facing a fiscal crisis of his own making, nevertheless remains unmoved by evidence, reason, common sense, and arithmetic. The governor and his allies are confronted with a simple choice: stick to ideological principles and oppose Medicaid expansion out of partisan spite or listen to state hospitals and take simple steps to prevent medical facilities from closing their doors.

So far, they’re not choosing wisely.

I think when you see right wing "ideological principles" it is wise to consider them as "faith-based principles".

[mike777]

I guess if you are looking at single issue voters, then abortion is still a hot button for many.
The perception is Dems are for unlimited, govt funded abortions, the Reps are for many more restrictions or even pro life. Abortion affects many issues such as judges, Planned ParentHood, etc.


As for the money issue, here in America the general viewpoint is the Rich are Rich because they earned it not because they stole it. As this viewpoint changes to more the Rich are stealing our money more will vote for Dems.

I guess the viewpoint is in Europe the Rich stole the money from us or their Dad stole the money and gave it to the kids tax free. We need the govt to steal it back for us.
----------------

I guess another single issue may be on defense and the military. Dems today are looked at as pacifists and ignore the world as it really is. Draw redline...then do nothing.... Reps are looked at as gun nuts who lust for war any war any time...shoot first think later..

[kenberg]

y66, on 2015-September-22, 14:31, said:

Why do poor people vote Republican?


Of those who do vote Republican, race, religious beliefs and ignorance are apparently bigger factors than economic self interest. For example, 70 percent of white non-Hispanic evangelicals self identify as Republicans or leaning Republican vs 19 percent Democrat and the rest do not lean either way. In a Public Mind poll earlier this year, 51 percent of Republicans said they believe it to be "definitely true" or "probably true" that American forces found an active weapons of mass destruction program in Iraq vs 32 percent of Democrats.


Sources: Working class voters: why America's poor are willing to vote Republican and Pew Research Center.

The first thing that struck me was surprise that 41% of those who earned less than $10,00 voted. I would have expected a lower percentage. I am so surprised by that figure I am at least a little skeptical of it.
At the least, I would like to see a breakdown of the figures. There are various reasons that people are making less than $10,000. Over the years I have known people who are in tough situations. They usually don't vote.

On to other figures. In the same Guardian article we find

Quote

The question of why poor people vote Republican is not simply an issue of income but primarily race and partly region and gender. Poor people may be more likely to vote Democrat; poor white people are not. In 2008 McCain won a slim majority (51%) of white Americans who earn less than $50,000 (this is just below the national median income which is not poor but the only figure available from exit polls that breaks down votes down by race and income), while Obama won a whopping majority of non-whites in the same category (86%). Asked in May which candidate would do more to advance their family's economic interests middle-class white voters who say they are struggling to maintain their financial positions gave Romney a 26 point lead over Obama.

this under $50,000 group was more what I was thinking of when i responded to Gerber. Or something like that. And while I am assuming that this is family income I might be wrong.

So we have about half the whites in the under 50,000 class voting R. The question is why. Or at least that could be the question. For 2012, apparently many "middle-class white voters who say they are struggling to maintain their financial positions" (which is really the group I was thinking of, the ones under 10K would not be lower middle class or any middle class) think that Romney would have been better for their economic interests [Wrong number deleted] Were they wrong? Perhaps. Perhaps not. In a way, it is more interesting if they are wrong.

In my fantasy family (FF as Rik says) I portrayed a family that quite possibly thinks that the Dems are interested in various definable groups, but not interested in them, maybe even considers them the enemy. If this some good sized number is thinking this way, and if they are wrong, it would be a very good idea for the Democratic Party to start thinking about how they can correct this mistaken view. Providing that the view is mistaken.


bottom line: If 86% [oops, wrong number] of "middle-class white voters who say they are struggling to maintain their financial positions" think an R would be better for their finances than a D, the Ds have, at the very least, a problem in communication. I don't think writing them off as morons is a good idea.

[y66]

kenberg, on 2015-September-22, 15:35, said:

bottom line: If 86% of "middle-class white voters who say they are struggling to maintain their financial positions" think an R would be better for their finances than a D, the Ds have, at the very least, a problem in communication. I don't think writing them off as morons is a good idea.

I think it was 58% for Romney, 32% for Obama among the struggling middle-class white voter cohort. But yeah, point taken about the communication problem. Bernie Sanders gets this. But the Democratic PR guys are totally out communicated by their Republican counterparts on the economics front. I believe they even had you worrying more about the budget deficit than the unemployment rate 5 or 6 years ago.

[kenberg]

y66, on 2015-September-22, 16:05, said:

I think it was 58% for Romney, 32% for Obama among the struggling middle-class white voter cohort. But yeah, point taken about the communication problem. Bernie Sanders gets this. But the Democratic PR guys are totally out communicated by their Republican counterparts on the economics front. I believe they even had you worrying more about the budget deficit than the unemployment rate 5 or 6 years ago.

Ah right, I got the figures mixed. At any rate, a substantial number thought that an R would be better for their finances than a D.

As to the deficit, I doubt that a deficit for a year is a big problem An ongoing large yearly deficit accumulating to a large debt does strike me as a problem .I know some say that it isn't, but yes, I am not convinced.

Sometimes a communication problem is not a communications problem. Everyone understands, they disagree. Even with the ACA, I have talked with people of modest means who believe that they have not been helped by it. So, possibly, they believe they would not be helped by Obama. Possibly they are right.