Mark Blyth and Wendy Schiller - Election 2016: What Happened and Why? 

I don't know how Blyth keeps his patience here, while the whole problem that led to Trump is played out a few inches to his left.

Mark Blyth is absolutely spot on in this talk!

These two are not on the same level. Blyth is giving a detailed account of things to come in the future. Schiller can barely verbalize in a sensible manner the events of the immediate past.

The funny thing about this is we got answers to who was right.... Blyth was. He nails it everytime. He is my new favorite political thinker.

Schiller seems to have a lot of ways of saying "HRC should have won, but voters on election day somehow didn't understand that they needed to vote accordingly, for reasons of their reasons."

I hope Wendy Schiller is not tenured. If so, then the "the bar is too low" at Brown [see South Park]. She is really out of her league in this discussion. I felt embarrassed for her.

Blyth's perspective is very interesting. Fast forward through Schiller, she essentially just parrots the clueless MSM view.

This woman teaches political science? Yikes. She's nothing more than a neoliberal apologist. We're doomed.

Listening to Wendy Schiller talk is unbearable.

"I'm not going to blame the polls or the mainstream media for this", Wendy are you for real????

Mark Blyth speaks at 13:10, 34:40, 1:01:05, 1:04:18, 1:05:23, 1:08:55, 1:11:16, 1:15:11, 1:19:32, 1:25:47

Perfect example how smart voices are drowned out by confident ignorant ones, Pr. Schiller should have shown a modicum of decency and stop talking and allow Mark Blyth to speak, but i guess that's too much to ask from someone like her !!

Mark Blythe is awesome. An eloquent, informed and charismatic straight talker.

this presentation is invaluable: it puts side by side the sound of the establishment and that of what actual reasoning sounds like. it's harder to realize how mind blowing the difference really is when you hear them separately.

He gets it. She doesn't.

Skip to 13:11 to the beginning of Mark's opinion. 34:41 Wendy Schiller is out of touch. Spouting Clinton line excuses and her analysis is terrible. It is Hillary's fault. She is a TERRIBLE candidate who couldn't beat a candidate with as many flaws as Trump. Just look at how she spouts sexism as a reason why Hillary lost then when asked about Bernie she says people just wanted to vote for something new.

Mark has it right. Wendy is completely delusional. She does not understand at all what just happened. The Democratic establishment was completely and utterly humiliated. They are totally discredited. She's in total denial of where to lay the blame.

Mark, please continue to give your simple and direct message just as you've given it here, but without Wendy Schiller yelling next to you. Rarely have I heard such a polarization of understanding, and we need to be hearing from you: not least because we're rather off the map as far as 'mainstream parties running the show' and not likely to depart from your projections anytime soon, for the reasons you yourself have given.

Damn it, Wendy. It wasn't because of the negative vitriol regarding HRC, it was the fact that she represented more of the same non-incremental progressive change, at a time when we need more far sweeping positive change, than ever.

When does she stop talking?

"I have some perspective because I am older" What a load of bollocks. She did NOT see the rise of fascism and she has no clue how bad it can and will get.

Wendy seems so out of touch.. Marks hitting it right on the head.

A nice contrast between someone who gets it and someone who doesn't

Bernie would have steamrolled Trump. You'd have felt sorry for him.

Schiller is in complete denial. It only gets more painful to watch as the video goes on. Of course I had my suspicions when she tried to argue with an economist about what inflation is.

In 2015, seven years after they were bailed out, Wall St. BONUSES ONLY totaled $28.4 Billion. Just let that sink in...

Lady, it IS her fault! It's her history. It's her flip-flops. It's her pro fracking stance in the midst of Standing Rock (yes it's a pipeline but it causes people to connect the dots). It's her connections to Saudi Arabia and the other Arab states who poured money into the Clinton Foundation. It's her laughing at Gadaffi's death, It's her pro no fly zone. It's her wagging a finger and yelling at a Greenpeace activist. It's her....shall I go on?

The Jimmy Dore Show brought me here

Yes, and after Reagan came the Clinton era with mass incarceration, deregulation of wallstreet, nafta and all our the seeds of the current malaise...

"Smartest guy on RU-vid explains election, economics, middle class, and predatory capitalism and gets glared at by Clinton apologizer deflecting with head in sand." Fixed that title for ya...

I wish Mark Blyth would talk more... Wendy Shiller had many good points, true, but she sort of hogged the mic...

Bernie polled 15 POINTS BETTER against Trump. This woman is a Hillbot. She teaches at a university? !?!

1:08:40 "I think there might have been a negative reverb among women for Bernie [ If had won the primary ] " Buuuuuullshit

Mark Blyth, I must read his books. The looks he gives Wendy Schiller, when she lays bare her patriotism... That's all it is, she is a true believer in America's greatness and further potential. It is unfortunate this trait tends to be religious in nature, otherwise the people might become more empirical about it and find more nuanced interpretations of history, and even seek more favorable compromise with their superiors, instead of fighting questionable wars on their behalf, reveling in the red on the flag, which flows through our hearts.

Mark is terrifying b/c he almost always gets his predictions right. Hard predictions. Then he says; "What if Putin invades the Baltic?" etc. Damn. Listen to a bunch of Mark's talks - he is incredibly bright.

Why is Schiller even on this panel?

Amen Mark Blyth! You nailed it sir.

Ohh yes ! this is a classic . Definitely worth a re-view .

Schiller puts in an awesome performance as a droid with volumes of data, and pretty much **no** real comprehension, no sense of context. Next time the school produces a video like this, please put Dr. Blyth on first, so I don't have to skip ahead so much!

Watch Blyth's nonverbal as she speaks. Sadness. Consternation. Despair.

Wendy Schiller does most of the talking but has nothing to say. It's a shame because Mark Blyth is his mercurial self with concise and precise analysis.

Voting in the current American political system and expecting change is a dead end. If Americans really want change, it's way past time to start voting for a third party to shake things up here...once this happens we will see politicians dig deeper to please the people...as long as the 2 party system continues, NOTHING WILL CHANGE!!!!

Blythe says few words but so much when he does speak. He's a more serious George Carlin.

Finding humour amidst the grinding Progressive Soapboxing, the part where one of the panel members reveals a dumbfounding lack of economic understanding (regarding inflation) raised a smile :).

Well, she got the commitment part right, but then I skipped her and the rest of her talk as soon as she said that "You can't attribute this to a turn-out failure....blah blah" The fact is, Brooklyn didn't care about Wisconsin and Michigan and the turn out was depressed all around as several million people strayed home. How in the world did you miss that?

Enjoyably concise and very insightful exploration of many topics. Total under emphasis on climate policy though and it's inevitable political ramifications and likely economic implications, so Mr Blyth certainly needs to broaden his mind and scope and on the topic.

Perhaps we should only be hearing from the person who correctly predicted the Rise of Trump and the Results of Brexit. The person who is shocked and didnt see this coming should probably just sit there and listen up.

This is a very interesting and informative discussion.

Really interesting stuff! Both speakers made some good points. Would love to interview Mark Blyth one day

Wow. Even if you have watched this before jump to what Blyth says at 42:34 it will blow your mind hearing him predict what is happening today in April 2022 in November 2016.

Love this. This needs to go viral. As for the article Blyth quoted, Thomas Frank deserves a shout out too. Read him!

I agree with your comments! He's a genius! :)))

I would like to volunteer for that Prof. Schiller focus group. She needs to listen and learn rather than bang on so assuredly about Hillary. She was a nightmarish choice of a candidate. Also, she was the sole beneficiary of a stolen primary.

I haven't met a living, breathing human being who wouldn't pick Bernie Sanders over Donald Trump.

She doesn't acknowledge the ways in which this election is in fact different from past ones, the many ways in which it's historically unprecedented, and the reality that in the course of the pendulum going back and forth, massive amounts of damage can be done to human lives and history. As if all of history were a matter of balance and give and take, and politics a matter of balancing opposing viewpoints, not real struggles and real lives - as if there were no trajectory in any direction, it all comes out in the wash?. She talks patronisingly to the young people, as if the young people are the only ones shocked and hurting right now. A true political scientist.

Wendy Schiller, please read the comments here and learn from them.

I feel like his comment "We need to do less" was directed at his co-speaker who just didn't know when to shut the hell up xD

I live in Baltics and just cant believe what i just heard.

Can't believe she's a lecturer at a top University, sounds like a politician just repeating the stats. He's bang on and seriously insightful. Been watching a few of Mark Blyth's talks, he really understands the bigger picture and international affairs.

I'm very liberal in terms of economic and political beliefs but the Wendy is being biased not with her beliefs but the assumption that the whole crowd agrees with her.

I really don't understand why Mark said rebuilding manufacturing by creating new industries _such as sustainable energy_ or allowing existing viabilities _such as repurposing car manufacturing facilities to produce mass transit_ ''is dishonest''!

Schiller - very apt surname

Mark is genius and I enjoy listening his well educated and extremely intelligent and factual discussions. This sheila on the other hand is incompetent despite her degree and completely blind to what is going on.

Ashley grant, Blyth and I are in agreement with you…

Blyth begins at 34:46 - before that is Schiller, don't waste your time on her. Read comments below to understand why to ignore her.

If I paid Wendy Schiller for an education id sure her for my arrested development. The gulf in intellect is staggering

Would have liked to hear significantly more from Blyth, the other prof just spouted the exact same talking points of every other Dem

she has a very firm grasp of the obvious.

Blyth is interesting. That chic is a Hillarycrat.

Blyth speaks: 13:10 34:40 1:04:10 and on and off during QA.

Wow. Just wow. Not only is Schiller woefully out of touch, but shockingly uninformed. Perhaps CNN would be a better fit for her...

Now she sounds like she's speaking to some kind of support group or something. People don't need ignorant coddling, they need truth. Without truth all the best laid plans are for naught.

Interesting watching this talk two years later. What stood out to me was the neo-nationalism topic. Both were incredibly realistic.

I'd love to see a candid video of Schiller initiating, chatting up a janitor. I suspect I'd have an easier time finding one of Big Foot. But at 1:21:00, she's trying to pretend that she is not the problem.

43:33 this dude called it

Whats with the audio levels? Very interesting information but audio levels drop out to almost nothing then come back to normal.

They are both right.

Dr. Schiller, outside the world of politics are phenomena like climate change that have stringent dynamics not waiting for one country's particular election cycle. Humanity is bumping up against the rigid surface of how it now has global effects. Peer-reviewed climate research recently coming out and reviewed positively by people like Dr. Michael Mann at Penn State, indicates that the next few years may be crucial to human survival.

Is anyone else disturbed that a student calmly asked why they should even engage others in debate? Frankly, I want to write a bunch of mean things and swear about it... But I'm running into this a lot, trying to engage people at random, many people would rather try to shut conversations down with mean words rather than actually provide arguments. Where is this coming from? Why do people think this is okay?

to say that women wouldn't have voted for bernie because they would have had some kind of hissie fit due to bernie pushing her out must be pretty insulting to women.

she seems to be talking about maintaining the system. I don't think he agrees...

I love how after Mark's opening tirade Wendy was momentarily speechless. Yes, Trump may be a reaction to our situation, but he has/had no intention of doing anything about it. When is the opposition going to offer an alternative??

It was very telling they were uncomfortable with each others understanding. The long expressions (especially his) at the end of his first exchange just nailed it. lol funny! Markarticulated deeper underlying reasons. where she could only point to the surface of things. What an apt name Wendy Schiller, presenting a professional spin which totally misses the point that Hillary IS actually responsible for almost all, if not all, the other reasons she tried to give. She lost me after that.

Interesting to listen to 2 academics.......one learned and aware of a global response to actions and consequences and the other painfully as usual only aware of what happens in her classroom and in the US, typical of most educators in USA.........don't understand or care about anything that happens beyond her tiny sphere.

19:35 huey long didnt pit blacks against whites. afaik he talked about giving them an ewual share

I don't think that Professor Wendy Schiller is right in what regards polling. From my own experience: I have been called about once a week the entire spring by polling agencies. After I made it clear to them, after the California primary, that under no circumstances would I vote for Clinton, THEY ALL STOPPED calling me.

im still not convinced trump will be able to do anything about interventionism... oh and Mark is so off on his perception that Putin will invade baltics, Stephen Cohen has some great insight on this

Is this Professor a spokesman fore the Democratic party?

Mark starts an ends at 13:11-18:55, 34:45-43:44, then Q&A 52:42-54:46, 1:00:13-1:02:37, 1:04:15-1:04:47, 1:05:14-1:06:16, 1:10:47-1:12:33, 1:15:00-1:16:58, 1:19:04-1:21:07, 1:24:47-1:26:53

Is there any way to get a Transcript of this talk. I would like to know exactly what they are saying. It's all about economics.

What happened? The left felt they had no one to vote for, they'd been told over and over a vote for Jill Stein was a wasted vote, so they didn't vote at all. Here in Australia, voting's compulsory, so we regularly hand the balance of power to microparties and independents - basically, we hang parliament. And we do it for the same reason Clinton lost in the US: no left, just liberals.

I am a former student of both of these professors and can attest that both are pretty brilliant. I think people on here should realize that this talk was intentionally set up to offer two different perspectives- Blyth is an economist who is giving a very "macro" analysis of global trends and Schiller is a political scientist who is giving historical context to this based on past election cycles and the history of both parties. She isn't "clueless" about the broader economic trends, she's just speaking to how they will actually affect the government over the next four years...and what this will mean for the audience of students, who are presumably interested in becoming politically involved. There is no one reason why Trump won- each voter had a different set of values and a different circumstance. I think there is a lot of truth to what Blyth is saying about economic frustration, but that doesn't mean you can totally discount that some votes for Trump were based on sexism/xenophobia.

Blyth clearly has the more solid analysis of what just happened. I kind of take issue with his analysis of the manufacturing sector, but I'm not an economist. He made reference to Germany and what they're doing. What exactly is that? And is it sustainable? My understanding is that they've boosted employment due to global demand for their products, but since that has slacked off because of "emerging markets" (is that just fancy talk for "cheap labor"?), the employment numbers are currently being supported by Germany's domestic demand. Won't that eventually collapse? How will Brexit effect that? On the broader landscape, why can't our trade agreements be built around Fair Trade, rather than Free Trade? Why must cheap labor and the absence of environmental protection be the main bargaining chips? Why is it that, given we had governments with the guts to do it, couldn't we renegotiate the trade agreements so that they required countries to use other parts of the equation as their leg up? Like a technological/environmental/raw materials efficiency aspect? I.e. they've got a better way of making something, they can sell it our country. If they are only able to bring cheap labor and environmental destruction to the table........then they pay a tariff? Help me out here.

What does Mark call it at 15:00ish? The Looker's Critique?

1:07:58 I found this download in a dusty nook on my computer ;) so I listened to it today (Oct. 2021) till the end. Priceless - and she is a _political scientiest:_ Sanders would NOT have won because women that liked HRC would have continued to been offended. And wealthy voters would have avoided him. The latter is true. - but Sanders did not need to win those voters in masses (the HRC affin females usually roam in large numbers in the solidly blue states). Sanders only needed to win the Electoral College, did she still not understand that in 2016 - after 2000 ?? HRC tried to win over the mythical moderate Republicans, and did some vanity campaigning in Arizone - Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania were considered a safe bet, they owed her the vote. She utterly failed to turn around Republicans and turned off the D base, it was so bad that she even turned blue states purple. Sanders did not NEED the wealthy suburban voters. Many of them will vote Trump or any Republican candidate, no matter what. They did in 2016 and doubled down in 2020, which is quite remarkable if you look at the "performance" of Trump. Fact is the people that the Corporate Dems like to woe, may have a degree, nice houses and have manners - but they are not disturbed enough by Trump to consider voting for HRC, Biden or Sanders or anyone with a D to his or her name. They would be embarrassed in many cases to admit that they vote Trump(and likely did not admit it in polls as well), they will not have the signs or run around with red caps, that would be uncough. But they vote money, gentrification, and their privilige. If need be with Trump at the helm. End of. The progressive grassroots made Georgia 2020 (and the 2 Senate seats) possible and secured Minnesota, and the Rustbelt states. The typical suburban liberals that are not only motivated by money would have to weigh Sanders against _Trump._ If they are just solidly middle class they would have liked climate change, federal jobs and infrastructure program (if they are smart) and M4A - would still help _them_. And student loan forgiveness. The well off females (usually middle aged and older) that were so offended that he dared to run against the anointed one - would have had to make a hard choice. No one would have taken a Sanders win for granted. I think Trump maximized turnout in 2016 (what a candidate like HIM could achieve. The affluent Republicans did not stay home and be disgusted as the Democratic establishment had hoped).The ardent feminist fans of HRC would have needed to reconcile themselves with voting for a real progressive, a honorary feminist (Gloria Steinem), and real civil rights activist with no scandal in his personal life that treats his wife with respect (Jane was a cutie back in the day, but also a poltiically engated single mom of 3 kids, and she is smart and eloquent. Not a trophy wife). So that was one package - OR Trump. I guess it would have been a struggle but some ardent HRC supporters would have come round. Sure, many that voted for her in the primaries voted for McCain in the general. But McCain apart from the lust for war wasn't that uncough. The U.S. had 68 % turnout in 2020, that was a 100 year record. In other wealthy nations 78 % turnout is kinda lame if it is an important election (like the German federal election of Sep. 2021 - parliament and determines which party gets to chose the Chancellor). Sanders would not have needed the affluent suburban voters that would vote their tax cuts plus Trump over a decent man that looks out for the little guy an gal. He just would have needed not to lose the typical blue states. HRC lost Florida - I think Sanders might have lost it too (the Republicans AND the Corporate Dems would have brought up his Castro remarks. Now - he could have activated low income turnout. And they had a good Latino approach in 2020, maybe they could have worked some of that magic with Chuck Rocha in AZ and FL. But let's say he would have lost FL, too. Like HRC. And Biden. Then he would have needed to win MI, WI, and PA. Clinton managed to lose those 3 over a total of 70,000 votes. And win IL (which Clinton pulled off, I guess Obama could not have avoided campaigning for Sanders, would have looked weird if he would have been too obvious about the desire to have Sanders lose). Sanders would NOT have lost MI, WI and PA - even Clinton almost pulled off a win in those states. And I think he would have given Nina Turner of Ohio a big role - think black females backing her up and the matriarchs telling their families how to vote. Obama won Ohio twice - and then Trump won it twice. To be fair with 8 % margin each time. But I think in Ohio it is economics and I guess Sanders would have had sway with the union base. And the union leadership would have needed to work with him. Would look kinda bad for them if they would campaign for the real estate hustler that now ran for the Republican party, who had defrauded small companies and their workers. So Sanders either needed to win the usual blue states (HRC also won Illinois) plus either Fl or VA or OH. One of the 3 would have sufficed. And maybe winning all 4 electors in Maine (HRC manged to lose 1 to Trump as well - the first time since 1988). After they had screamed "Trump bad" at the top of their lungs I wonder how the Democratic establishment AND their media buddies would have tried to undermine Sanders and make him lose (likely by talking constantly about how bad his chances are). That would have been interesting to watch. Young people would have campaigned their heart out and I think he would have activated many non voters. In the few marginal states.

In retrospect this talk is fascinating. After Blythe delivers his reasoning the liberal middle class professor seems shell shocked.

Lady, I like your spirit but independents and millennials came out in droves for Bernie. Of course he would have won! By several landslides!

49:16 to see Wendy Schiller face plant as she demonstrates to the audience that she doesn't understand the definition of inflation. I've got $5 on it for anyone who will edit her out of this video so that the intelligent parts of this great dialogue can be saved.

Is Wendy Schiller speaking to college students or kindergarten?

RU-vid really REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY wants me to watch these videos.