Perhaps it would be a cite for sore eyes?
Now you’re just being silly. Race is, by far, the single demographic factor that correlates most strongly with the Trump/Clinton choice.
Trump won whites who prefer rock music by a large margin.
Trump won whites who prefer country music by a large margin.
Trump won whites with blue eyes by a large margin.
Trump won white Protestants by a large margin.
Trump won whites with freckles by a large margin.
But, as you own cite shows, Trump won educated whites by only a small margin. He won white women by even a smaller margin. This is because gender is a big predictor, and education-level has suddenly become a strong predictor of voting affiliation. For decades the D/R votes among educated and uneducated were roughly equal (and as recently as 1996, Dole(R) almost won the “educated” vote). But this changed sharply in the 2016 election. Contrary to the decades-old roughly even split between D and R, Educated voters in general veered so sharply toward D that Clinton won the educated white woman vote, and came much closer than Obama among educated white men! My cite is … wait for it … the same Pew Research report Silver lining cites.
Hope this helps.
Who said anything about rural voters? My guess is that there as many, if not more, WWE fans in around the big cities. But I may be wrong about that.
Yes, there are dumb people in the cities, too. Yes, dumb people would rather be reassured than informed; that’s part of what makes them dumb. But no, a party that panders to their dumbness, openly and brazenly lying to them, is not doing the right thing.
Right. 100th place based on test scores, and the black kid was 101st, but got pushed above her based on racial preferences.
You couldn’t blame her for being upset at finding that out. Of course, in the real world, she would never find that out, because admissions offices don’t reveal that data. If she chose to express her disappointment at not getting admitted in the form of racial resentments, that would reflect only on her, not on the admissions committee.
And of course, under “holistic” admissions policies, it’s just as likely that her low socioeconomic status might have gotten her admitted instead of a black kid from Beverly Hills with better test scores.
But reality would interfere with the OP’s hypothetical.
Yes, I would “blame” her for being upset. She has no right to entry into any particular school. She will get into a school that wants to give her a place. The school, I presume, never said “we’ll take the top 100 test scores.” The school gets to pick the criteria, and if racial diversity gives one applicant an edge, well, that’s the way it is. Ms. 101st Place can go somewhere else for her education, like I did.
-
I don’t know how many of them watch wrestling all day, but yes, it is entirely accurate to refer to Trump voters collectively as “dumb bumblefucks”. However, the post you are quoting didn’t do that, it just wondered how many of them enjoy wrestling and expressed no value judgment. The implied disdain for wrestling fans is entirely your own projection.
-
Despite the fact that Trump voters are, in fact, dumb bumblefucks, no prominent Democratic politician ever refers to them as such, and if they did, they should be removed from party leadership positions. We need our fair share of the dumb bumblefuck vote in order to compete.
-
So, when you imply that Democrats/liberals are “the side” that insults white rural voters, what you really mean is “some guy on the Internet” insults white rural voters. So, if that’s your standard, “your side” is constantly insulting minorities, liberals, urbanites, youth, and educated people. Why would you expect any of those people to ever consider supporting your side? And given demographic trends, how do you plan to remain relevant as a political party beyond the next few years?
You’re absolutely right, of course. I wouldn’t judge her too harshly for having that emotional reaction, at least in the immediate term, but it would be completely irrational.
I’m speaking as a lower middle class white kid who was rejected by lots and lots of colleges and graduate programs, some of which I might well have gotten into in a world without affirmative action, yet managed to get a perfectly adequate education in the end.
It’s like proposing marriage, you only need to get one “yes” out of a potentially infinite number of asks. If you can’t get that, the issue is probably with you, rather than with every single one of the people who rejected you.
I do not blame her, either.
I agree with everything here. If rural voters feel insulted for being called racist dumbshits, maybe they should stop acting like racist dumbshits.
One problem with that is that your suggestion is not in fact the only option for these people. One other option is to continue acting the way they’ve been acting and to develop an antipathy towards people who apparently despise them, which would manifest in them voting against any and all such people.
Au contraire! Look how frequently people at this board are hectored and insulted into changing their minds. If the smartest people on the web can be changed through such techniques, why wouldn’t it work on a gaggle of rusticated stumblefucks?
TL;DR
Has anybody brought up legal immigrants … the Mexican with a green card … last thing this person wants is someone sneaking across the border, taking their job by working for half wages … fairly good chunk of these folks are ideologically conservative, Catholic-raised … if Republicans want “family values”, they should throw open the border gates and have these Mexicans bring their cultural values and make these values a part of the United States … just flipping California this way would keep them in power for many years to come …
What Trump demonstrated is that there are people that wanted a Trump for a long time. And he became president thanks in part to using insults and seeding discord.
Bush and other Texan Republicans already did show that that does work, but Republicans now want to turn Texas and other states into California.
It should take more years, but with Trump that change can accelerate. As Pete Willson and others used hate to win early only to find out that that hate has limits.
Exactly! Trump supporters voted for a man who is the ultimate example of insulting the other side. The left is following the path of the right. If the right doesn’t like it, show the left how to take the higher road. STOP LAUGHING!!! :D:D:D
Except that the party that despises them so much that they don’t even bother not lying to them still gets their votes. How does that happen? Oh, right, the party that gets frustrated that they won’t listen to truth is the one that really despises them, right.
None of you apologists have anything to say about how the Democrats really can get the “undereducated” that Trump “loves” to support them, only pouting about the Deplorables comment. If you’re telling us there really is no way to appeal to their reason, respect for facts, and basic humanity, aren’t you the most antipathic toward them of all?
BTW, the constant references to the Deplorables comment do come off as looking for a presentable excuse, not presenting a reason. Clinton was trailing badly in the Ignorant demographic well before that, and the reasons are worth exploring a little more deeply, wouldn’t you say?
She wasn’t wrong about it, and none of you are saying so either, only that it was politically unwise to say it. None of you are claiming Trump took a higher road, for that matter.
The right feigns outrage every time someone offers an insult. They complain that they feel disrespected. They rant and scream and act offended about being called racists and ignorant and “deplorable.”
And they do this while simultaneously voting for a bully who insults and attacks everyone around him - except Putin. And then when pressed on his heinous insults and disrespect, they call it “refreshing” and “honest” that he isn’t “pc” and “says what he really thinks.”
Huh. How about that.
Well, since the election I’ve started telling Republicans “what I really think” and somehow they are not nearly as amused. Which proves he point that Republicans are hypocrites, and insults are only acceptable when you are attacking their imaginary enemies.
I’ve mentioned this before, but the Extra Credit folks on YouTube have been running a series for a few weeks called Extra Politics wherein they compare politics to more ordinary game playing. This episode that distinguishes between Explicit and Implicit rules in both games in politics. The analogy they use is chess. There are a lot of explicit rules in chess but nothing that says you cannot punch your opponent in the mouth. Instead, that is an implicit rule; in society, people don’t belt other people in the mouth without provocation, if even then. So, yeah, ttechnically someone can win a chess game by belting their opponent then claiming there’s no rule that say they can’t do so, but it’s a scuzzy way of winning the game.