Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time. --Frank Wilhoit
Nope, you're still wrong. We know this because anti-Hillary Bernie's supporters went to Biden--it's not because they're progressive, it's because they're conservative. I don't know if you're so used to getting away with lying you think that's going to fly with me, but what I linked is backed by actual data and analysis. Also, are you saying an actual opinion article I didn't cite disagrees with the peer reviewed study I did cite? Here's another way we know the whole "economic anxiety" explanation is self-serving, myopic nonsense--it only addresses anxious white people's votes, who, though they were "satisfied with their immediate economic situation" were "pessimistic about the future." Which sounds suspiciously like status threat. Here's another way we know it's nonsense: black people, who arguably experience more economic anxiety, were largely impervious:
Perhaps the most prominent data point for the Calamity Thesis is a pair of recent Brookings Institution studies by the professors Anne Case and Angus Deaton, which showed that life expectancy has fallen among less-educated white Americans due to what they call “deaths of despair” from drugs, alcohol, and suicide. While the studies themselves make no mention of Trump or the election, the effects they describe are frequently invoked as explanations for the president’s appeal: White people without college degrees are living in deprivation, and in their despair, they turned to a racist demagogue who promised to solve their problems.
This explanation appeals to whites across the political spectrum. On the right, it serves as an indictment of elitist liberals who used their power to assist religious and ethnic minorities rather than all Americans; on the left, it offers a glimmer of hope that such voters can be won over by a more left-wing or redistributionist economic policy. It also has the distinct advantage of conferring innocence upon what is often referred to as the “white working class.” After all, it wasn’t white working-class voters’ fault. They were suffering; they had to do something.
The studies’ methodology is sound, as is the researchers’ recognition that many poor and white working-class Americans are struggling. But the research does not support the conclusions many have drawn from it—that economic or social desperation by itself drove white Americans to Donald Trump.
It’s true that most Trump voters framed his appeal in economic terms. Kelly, a health-care worker in North Carolina, echoed other Trump supporters when she told me that to her, “Make America great again” meant “people being able to get jobs, people being able to come off food stamps, welfare, and that sort of thing.” But a closer look at the demographics of the 2016 electorate shows something more complex than a working-class revolt sparked by prolonged suffering.
Clinton defeated Trump handily among Americans making less than $50,000 a year. Among voters making more than that, the two candidates ran roughly even. The electorate, however, skews wealthier than the general population. Voters making less than $50,000, whom Clinton won by a proportion of 53 to 41, accounted for only 36 percent of the votes cast, while those making more than $50,000—whom Trump won by a single point—made up 64 percent. The most economically vulnerable Americans voted for Clinton overwhelmingly; the usual presumption is exactly the opposite.
If you look at white voters alone, a different picture emerges. Trump defeated Clinton among white voters in every income category, winning by a margin of 57 to 34 among whites making less than $30,000; 56 to 37 among those making between $30,000 and $50,000; 61 to 33 for those making $50,000 to $100,000; 56 to 39 among those making $100,000 to $200,000; 50 to 45 among those making $200,000 to $250,000; and 48 to 43 among those making more than $250,000. In other words, Trump won white voters at every level of class and income. He won workers, he won managers, he won owners, he won robber barons. This is not a working-class coalition; it is a nationalist one.
But Trump’s greater appeal among low-income white voters doesn’t vindicate the Calamity Thesis. White working-class Americans dealing directly with factors that lead to a death of despair were actually less likely to support Trump, and those struggling economically were not any more likely to support him. As a 2017 study by the Public Religion Research Institute and The Atlantic found, “White working-class voters who reported that someone in their household was dealing with a health issue—such as drug addiction, alcohol abuse, or depression—were actually less likely to express support for Trump’s candidacy,” while white working-class voters who had “experienced a loss of social and economic standing were not any more likely to favor Trump than those whose status remained the same or improved.”
Trump’s support among whites decreases the higher you go on the scales of income and education. But the controlling factor seems to be not economic distress but an inclination to see nonwhites as the cause of economic problems. The poorest voters were somewhat less likely to vote for Trump than those a rung or two above them on the economic ladder. The highest-income voters actually supported Trump less than they did Mitt Romney, who in 2012 won 54 percent of voters making more than $100,000—several points more than Trump secured, although he still fared better than Clinton. It was among voters in the middle, those whose economic circumstances were precarious but not bleak, where the benefits of Du Bois’s psychic wage appeared most in danger of being devalued, and where Trump’s message resonated most strongly. They surged toward the Republican column.
Yet when social scientists control for white voters’ racial attitudes—that is, whether those voters hold “racially resentful” views about blacks and immigrants—even the educational divide disappears. In other words, the relevant factor in support for Trump among white voters was not education, or even income, but the ideological frame with which they understood their challenges and misfortunes. It is also why voters of color—who suffered a genuine economic calamity in the decade before Trump’s election—were almost entirely immune to those same appeals."
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...lusion/546356/
I'm not under the illusion that you're here to actually learn or even have a genuine conversation, so the above isn't really for you. It's for others, so that when they see this self-serving bullshit trotted out like gospel, they'll know better.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time. --Frank Wilhoit
That isn't even how the electoral college works.
She won the popular vote by millions of votes. The electoral college works to weight those votes, giving more value to votes in certain regions. At best, her loss argues against strategy, not strength; that her strong performance overall failed to achieve victory because it was directed poorly.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/25/polit...ies/index.html
Republicans are not sending their best. Some, I assume, are not unhinged conspiracy theorist lunatics, but I'm struggling to find them.In the years before she ran for office, GOP congressional candidate Marjorie Taylor Greene wrote two conspiracy-laden blog posts speculating that the 2017 white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, that led to one counter-protester's death was an "inside job" and promoting a debunked conspiracy alleging some Democratic Party leaders were running a human-trafficking and pedophilia ring -- known as "Pizzagate" -- was real.
Greene, running now to represent in the northwest corner of Georgia in the US House, made the comments in 2017 and 2018, writing for the now-defunct website of American Truth Seekers, a conspiracy-laden blog.
In a Facebook post, Greene wrote that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was guilty of treason and suggested she could be executed.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time. --Frank Wilhoit
Those key states also had among the worst voter purges, voter ID laws, passed since the Voter Right's Act was gutted by the Roberts Court just before.
2016 was the first major election since the VRA rollbacks were implemented. So the damage to voter access was unknown and under reported. But those emails sure dominated the news.
Government Affiliated Snark
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time. --Frank Wilhoit
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time. --Frank Wilhoit
I'd have to agree with Endus here. If you are not voting for Biden you are doing something wrong. We need to vote the tyrant out even if a monkey is put in place against him.
^ This is from a self-proclaimed Trump-hater who goes round vote-policing, berating and insulting other users for expressing their doubts and reservations about Joe Biden. He also urges others to end relationships and friendships just to "vote Trump out". https://ibb.co/2jRnZGC He can't seem to walk the talk himself.
The latter argues that hands were forced. It's also "both sides" malarkey. Clinton wasn't an inspiring candidate, but claiming she was "terrible" in the same sense as Trump is just patently ridiculous. She was one of the most eminently qualified candidates that has ever run for the Presidency. She lacks a bit of charisma in big public events. That's about it.
I won't accept "But her emails" as an argument, either now or in that time, because it was never an issue for anyone else, before or after, even though they all did pretty much the same thing.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time. --Frank Wilhoit
If it was just down to their objective qualifications, you'd be right.
It wasn't.
It was down to voters' subjective impressions and prejudices, at least as much as any such analysis. There's literally nothing Clinton could have done to secure the vote of a hardline misogynist.