2020 Presidential Election

[Frelga]

But it gets weirder.

A new study reveals the real reason Obama voters switched to Trump

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

^
|

A new study shows that this response isn’t as powerful as it may seem. The study, from three political scientists from around the country, takes a statistical look at a large sample of Obama-Trump switchers. It finds that these voters tended to score highly on measures of racial hostility and xenophobia — and were not especially likely to be suffering economically.

/snip/

This new paper fits with a sizeable slate of studies conducted over the past 18 months or so, most of which have come to the same conclusions: There is tremendous evidence that Trump voters were motivated by racial resentment (as well as hostile sexism), and very little evidence that economic stress had anything to do with it.

I don't know what that means to Warren, or where the midterms fit in.

[Túrin Turambar]

As hard as it is for me to understand how one could be an Obama-Trump voter, part of me is actually kinda heartened that there are enough people not yet totally locked into partisan thinking that they can vote for different parties for them to make a real difference.

I think I mentioned before that I have an intelligent coworker who told me in 2016 that he could see himself voting for either Trump or Sanders, but no one else. That's the sort of thing that makes my head go wooga-wooga (or would, if my head weren't stuck in that state more or less permanently these days), but that is apparently how some people's priorities align.

I have said it here occasionally before, but many voters (particularly those who don't have a great interest in politics) have priorities other than ideology.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

DEMOCRATS WORRY THAT A FEMALE CANDIDATE CAN'T BEAT TRUMP: POLL

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[RoseMorninStar]

But it gets weirder.

A new study reveals the real reason Obama voters switched to Trump

The topic of this NYT article fits with that study: Why an Heiress Spent Her Fortune Trying To Keep Immigrants Out.

Strange bedfellows intertwine.

Re: the poll in which people fear that a woman can't beat Trump, I think that in part is a reflection of the fear of the very high stakes at play.

[Dave_LF]

I have said it here occasionally before, but many voters (particularly those who don't have a great interest in politics) have priorities other than ideology.

Well sure; but if Sanders and Trump are your top two choices, policy isn't your priority either. So what exactly are you voting for?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Loud, abrasive New Yorker.

ETA: Loud, abrasive, misogynistic New Yorker

[RoseMorninStar]

White male.

[Dave_LF]

There's were lots of white males in the primaries who weren't good enough. I asked him to clarify, and he said it was because Sanders and Trump were "outsiders." In other words, the whole government is corrupt, so let's vote in an actual gangster. Still going wooga-wooga.

[RoseMorninStar]

There's were lots of white males in the primaries who weren't good enough. I asked him to clarify, and he said it was because Sanders and Trump were "outsiders." In other words, the whole government is corrupt, so let's vote in an actual gangster. Still going wooga-wooga.

Yeah.. wooga-wooga.

[Túrin Turambar]

There's were lots of white males in the primaries who weren't good enough. I asked him to clarify, and he said it was because Sanders and Trump were "outsiders." In other words, the whole government is corrupt, so let's vote in an actual gangster. Still going wooga-wooga.

Yeah.. wooga-wooga.

I expected something like this, where his image of outsider is a cantankerous man in his seventies with a New York accent (but in fairness, something Trump and Sanders do have in common is that they never held elected office as a Democrat or Republican before their presidential runs).

I once spoke to someone who did post-election analysis for one of Australia's political parties who said there's quite a few people who switch their vote from one extreme to the other ideologically based on things like 'outsider', 'fighter', 'opposes elites', 'speaks to people like me', etc. I expect they'd make a lot of the Sanders-Trump vote.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Regarding the earlier discussion about 'elites' I am reminded of something Frank Herbert wrote in one of the later Dune books:

“Only liberals really think. Only liberals are intellectual. Only liberals understand the needs of their fellows.” How much viciousness lay concealed in that word! Odrade thought. How much secret ego demanding to feel superior.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[yovargas]

Meh. I've seen plenty of conservatives say that liberals can't think ot don't care about facts so that "viciousness" goes both ways.

Though I do think at this point it's just plain factual that liberals care a lot more about science than conservatives do.

[RoseMorninStar]

I am still puzzled (and troubled) by the 'elite' label and how it is used. It's not elitist when Republicans attend Private boarding schools/Military Academy, Wharton Business School, Yale, Harvard, etc.. and claim to be, "...like really smart." but it is when Democrats do. The hostile attitude toward education and the perception that the dumber/more average the better, I just do not get. When I lack knowledge on a subject, I consult someone with more knowledge/experience, not someone who is 'just like me'. An employer would not hire someone on that basis, why do we look for that in a President?

What follows is one sentence. Elitist on the surface(?) but not in practice(?)

“Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is so powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us, this is horrible.”

Just ugh.

[River]

That's true now, yov. It wasn't always.

Scientists as a group aren't necessarily liberal. We do, however, like facts and abhor the practice of creating alternatives, which puts tolerance for the 21st century GOP at a low. At least the Dems are keeping their "imma create my own reality!!" crowd out on the fringe where they belong instead of in, say, the White House.

[Cerin]

Rose, I meant to address your comment on Trump and elitism earlier. Trump is scorned by the elite because in spite of his advantages and education, he turned out to be a sleazy businessman whose bad manners and self-aggrandisement make him a complete embarrassment in polite society. I'm sure that part of the reason his supporters love him is because he obviously doesn't care about the norms of political behavior. People are so used to the eggshell walking that most politicians do in their effort not to put a foot wrong and offend some demographic or other, that seeing someone who speaks spontaneously and doesn't care about putting his foot in his mouth, and who thumbs his nose at the hoity toity must seem refreshing. They feel like he is one of them in spite of his riches (I'm speculating).

Consider that Trump had to skip that most elite of gatherings, the Kennedy Center honors, because the people attending did not want him there. Consider how he was ridiculed at that Washington Press Corps dinner, and how he hasn't attended that since becoming President. He does not fit in with the elite; he is not one of them.

[River]

All Presidents get roasted at the Press Corps dinner. It's part of the dinner. Remember what Colbert did to Bush? Trump just can't take it like a man.

[Cerin]

River, I was referring to that Press Corps dinner Trump attended when he was not President, at which, ironically now, Obama ridiculed Trump for his role on reality TV, comparing Trump's responsibilities on his TV show to his own (Obama's) responsibilities as President. (An urban myth arose later, that that humiliation is what made Trump determined to be President.)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yes, it was quite awful that President Obama poked gentle fun at a man who had engaged in a vicious, racist campaign against him, at an event in which it is expected that people be made fun of, and at which President Obama himself was the main target of being made fun of.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[Cerin]

I didn't mean to suggest Obama was at fault on that evening. My point was that Trump doesn't fit in at elite functions that other Presidents routinely attended.

[yovargas]

Posting this here as a potential companion to the discussion of what the right means by "elite".

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/essay/t ... education/

The share of Americans saying colleges and universities have a negative effect has increased by 12 percentage points since 2012. The increase in negative views has come almost entirely from Republicans and independents who lean Republican. From 2015 to 2019, the share saying colleges have a negative effect on the country went from 37% to 59% among this group. Over that same period, the views of Democrats and independents who lean Democratic have remained largely stable and overwhelmingly positive.

...

Roughly eight-in-ten Republicans (79%) say professors bringing their political and social views into the classroom is a major reason why the higher education system is headed in the wrong direction (only 17% of Democrats say the same).

The idea that there are a significant number of people who view education negatively is a bit stunning to me. But I suppose it explains a lot. It is perhaps of particular note that it's only in the past 5 years that there's been a sharp increase in the right's negative views on higher education.