Unfortunately the 'man on the street' doesn't know shit.
(Studies have been done to confirm this... there was one a while ago in the UK, asked people to estimate things, basically everyone got things wildly wrong; like 80 vs 20 wrong...)

The man on the street thinks he knows shit, and then when someone "important" stands up and confirms what his bias says he then really thinks he knows shit.

"He tells it like it is" is a often used refrain; no, he says what you already believe, regardless of how true it is, to get your vote...

I mean.. fuck me.. Trump is a millionaire, he knows fuck all about what the life of the 'person on the street' is about, but some right-wing Wackjobs feed some lines and he tells people what they already know and they believe him and think he will do things.

Trump is no less an 'elite' than all the others; he just took advantage of people to get to where he is...

Chances are those people will suffer for it... and I'm ok with that.

Unfortunately the right wing and religious wackjobs he seems to be surrounding himself with will make others suffer, likely even more... because they are wackjobs...

TLDR;
- People are dumb
- Politicans lie
- Rightwing/Religious wackjobs are coming in to power

Good luck with that...

1. No, there was a survey done in the UK where people were asked about various things (from immigration numbers, to money to the EU) and the results from the 'man on the street' were so wildly wrong it was laughable.

2. Well.. yeah... but then again the UK voting system at General Election times is also a shambles. Much with the US and 'safe states' the 'safe seats' in the UK make voting effectively pointless for many. (Last place I lived I did the maths and realised in that in the last election even if every other person who voted for someone other than the Tory candidate AND the people who didn't vote all voted for the same person he'd still end up winning by a safe margin. My parents live in the same situation; voting for anyone other than the Tory candidate is much like pissing in the wind.)

Unfortunately for point 2, if you ever start criticising the system someone will wave that old Churchill quote (the 'best for of government' one, not the 'argument against' one) in your face like that is that and the system we have is an Eternal Truth and nothing can be better than what we have... ya know, ignoring the fact that what we have is a system scaled up from City State level, to "limited lords" (which just about worked) to "everyone" in a world which is far more complicated than before. But.. no... lets all shout democracy loudly so it's the accepted truth and forget about trying to improve things...

Which is largely why I've opted out of the whole thing; those in power will continue to lie and manipulate to stay there, the people will buy it because they know no better and there will be no reform because those in power would lose it.
(and as Brexit is showing those in power will also continue to try to overstep that power, and when they get caught, will decry people as 'enemies of the people' or, at least, not defend them...)

I havent got a link to it at the moment but i remember there was a study that showed xenophobia was more prevalent in areas unaffected by immigration (UK).

What would be pretty fun is if he built a tiny 1M by 1M wall 10cm thick made of brick at the frontier and said "there, campaign promess done, let's move on".

I havent got a link to it at the moment but i remember there was a study that showed xenophobia was more prevalent in areas unaffected by immigration (UK).

here it is https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/voting-details-show-immigration-fears-were-paradoxical-but-decisive

Though the guardian is heavily biased on these matters.

If I had to guess, it's a combination of rage against the establishment, racial tensions after a black guy got elected (and racial tensions in general), and a candidate who failed to rally the base. That's my guess, which is as good as anyone's guess.

Even prior to Trump, we've been increasingly entering a racially tense time in the USA, so that may indeed be relevant. That said, the reason why I don't buy the 'this is a response to a black president' specifically, as a substantial part of Trump's victory, is because fewer Blacks and Hispanics voted for Hillary than for Obama, and about the same numbers voted for Trump as for Romney and McCain, and many people who voted for Trump claimed they voted for Obama twice, and surprising numbers of Trump voters actually like Obama and don't like Trump, but voted for him anyway.

Fewer people voted this election in general than last election.

Votes may have changed from the absurdity of Black Lives Matter supporters on college campuses, and possibly the rioting in various cities (which while not reflective of BLM, certainly has damaged their reputation), but I find it hard to believe it's a response to a black president, when any racist response would've occurred during Obama's re-election campaign, if not also his initial campaign.

Basically, if the argument is that racists came out to vote and swung the election or helped to swing the election more than they have in past elections, then why weren't they helping just as hard to vote against Obama during his re-election 2nd-term campaign, if not his initial 1st-term campaign, and instead are out more to vote against a well put together upper class white women? Because if they were out in equal or greater numbers against Obama, then the "reason" Hillary lost is not that more racists voted (if they are here in same or less numbers, either in total or as a percentage of a growing population), but that Hillary's numbers decreased in key areas.

It's also interesting (but obviously not definitive) that many of the counties that switched from Obama to Trump have very high unemployment relative to the national averages.

But as everybody else said, I fully agree with, this is just my speculation of a whirlpool of uncertainty. We may never know, but it's fun to think about.

Probably racists were just missing the "strong man talking as one of them" they could rally behind when Obama got into office again. Seems like a demagoge like him really helped getting people to vote.

On the other hand, Obama was definitely the better candidate in the eyes of many swing voters, no matter what promises he hadn't made true yet during his first 4 years, and how the economy took longer than expected to recover. He was eloquent, sharp, and a very good speaker, with a more or less spotless past, besides the "not born in the US" bullshit.

Things Hillary just didn't brought to the table to the same extent...