Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

If you spend a little time on google, you'll find plenty of surveys identifying increasing white supremacist views. But you've got plenty of other data points, from readership and/or viewership of things like the Daily Stormer, Breitbart, Tucker Carlson, to the votes for openly supremacist candidates to the increasing number of racially motivated or anti-semitic incidents.

Sure. But how do you conclude those are Trump voters?

You're looking at two sets of data, (a) Trump voters; and, (b) Racists/Xenophobes expressing such views online or watching/reading things that champion such views.

You can't credibly argue that because there was an uptick in racist/xenophobic activity, all or even a majority of people involved in it were Trump voters. You can assume it, but it's a very weak assumption. The linking stats just aren't present, and they never will be. That assumption also rests on a conclusion that online trolls and people with deviant views predominantly vote, rather than stay in their basements.*

But putting all of that aside, the selection of racism/xenophobia as the sole alternative to economic anxiety makes no sense. The framing is utterly arbitrary.

A whole lot of Trump voters are tax voters. They're not economically insecure. So "greedy" is one huge category overlooked by the racism vs. anxiety framework. A lot of Trump voters work in fossil fuel industries. Concern about environmental regulation that could hit their bottom line is another huge alternative to racism as a reason people voted for Trump. Military people tend to vote R all the time. There's another alternative group. Along those same lines, you have small to mid sized business owners. You have the people who just vote R across the board every year because that's how they've always done it. You have the pro-lifers. The Evangelicals, the Mormons. The list of possible reasons to vote Trump other than economic anxiety could go on for paragraphs.

And yet the conversation about this is always a choice between economic concerns and racism.

Who does this framing serve? (That's rhetorical.)

Why is this framing a one-or-the-other proposition? If you're on the left, or a neoliberal seeking to avoid discussion of economic causes that screw the poor, minorities, and the middle, but make you money, you want to push the narrative that it's racism. If you're on the right, you want to push the narrative that it's all about the hollowing out of the middle class. Both make your side appear to be victimized and noble.

But it's really grey, and we don't know the mindset of the average Trump voter. We never will. Surely, racism and economic anxiety are both drivers for many of his voters. But what percentage? Unknown, unknowable, and never to be credibly stated.

But that won't stop us, the media, and the people who slant stats to tease out the conclusion they desire from attempting to prove the makeup of Trump voters, but instead proving HL Mencken correct: "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

* ETA: Bots, also. How many of the armies of online racists are actually Russian, NK, and Chinese bots? And also, Carlson's audience is what? A few million? Cable news is shrinking at astonishing speed. If you take all of the viewers of the big cable news networks together, you still have a tiny fraction of the electorate. If you take Fox's share and stipulate they're all driven by racism and all voted for Trump, you still only have a small fraction of the 70 million he got in 2016.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Sure. But how do you conclude those are Trump voters?

You're looking at two sets of data, (a) Trump voters; and, (b) Racists/Xenophobes expressing such views online or watching/reading things that champion such views.

You can't credibly argue that because there was an uptick in racist/xenophobic activity, all or even a majority of people involved in it were Trump voters. You can assume it, but it's a very weak assumption. The linking stats just aren't present, and they never will be. That assumption also rests on a conclusion that online trolls and people with deviant views predominantly vote, rather than stay in their basements.

But putting all of that aside, the selection of racism/xenophobia as the sole alternative to economic anxiety makes no sense. The framing is utterly arbitrary.

A whole lot of Trump voters are tax voters. They're not economically insecure. So "greedy" is one huge category overlooked by the racism vs. anxiety framework. A lot of Trump voters work in fossil fuel industries. Concern about environmental regulation that could hit their bottom line is another huge alternative to racism as a reason people voted for Trump. Military people tend to vote R all the time. There's another alternative group. Along those same lines, you have small to mid sized business owners. You have the people who just vote R across the board every year because that's how they've always done it. You have the pro-lifers. The Evangelicals, the Mormons. The list of possible reasons to vote Trump other than economic anxiety could go on for paragraphs.

And yet the conversation about this is always a choice between economic concerns and racism.

Who does this framing serve? (That's rhetorical.)

Why is this framing a one-or-the-other proposition? If you're on the left, or a neoliberal seeking to avoid discussion of economic causes that screw the poor, minorities, and the middle, but make you money, you want to push the narrative that it's racism. If you're on the right, you want to push the narrative that it's all about the hollowing out of the middle class. Both make your side appear to be victimized and noble.

But it's really grey, and we don't know the mindset of the average Trump voter. We never will. Surely, racism and economic anxiety are both drivers for many of his voters. But what percentage? Unknown, unknowable, and never to be credibly stated.

But that won't stop us, the media, and the people who slant stats to tease out the conclusion they desire from attempting to prove the makeup of Trump voters, but instead proving HL Mencken correct: "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

Oh come on.

The White Supremacists range from Tucker Carlson to Proud Boys to Breitbart to the Highland Park Shooter to elected like Gohmert, Abbott, and DeSantis. They are all Republican (Trump) voters and electeds.

Sure, historically there were plenty of dems who went in for this stuff, but it's really been twenty years since the last of those types died off or went over the Republicans.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Oh come on.

The White Supremacists range from Tucker Carlson to Proud Boys to Breitbart to the Highland Park Shooter to elected like Gohmert, Abbott, and DeSantis. They are all Republican (Trump) voters and electeds.

Sure, historically there were plenty of dems who went in for this stuff, but it's really been twenty years since the last of those types died off or went over the Republicans.

If those asshats vote, yes, they vote Trump. But how many of those clowns are out there? A few million wingnuts? Maybe ten? (And how many are barred felons?)

I don't see any responsible statistical basis for the assertion Trump was overwhelmingly elected by racists.

Your argument that racists provided the little bit needed to win is true. Trump needed every group he that voted for him to win in 2016 as his margin was so thin. But that would mean that if he somehow lost, say, the military vote, or the tax voters, he would not have won. Every group he had was essential. Racists were one slice of a big, very strange pizza.

I'd totally agree with articles that said, "But for the Racists, No Trump." I think the math to support that is out there (with the caveat I just noted).

OTOH, articles saying, "It's Not the Economic Anxiety; It's the Racism," are stretching the point. It's both, among a lot of other shit. Much of it bizarre.

ETA: And the sexists! Fuck, how did I forget the sexists. Shit, that's a huge part of Trump's vote. In fact, how did racism become the favored narrative explaining Trump's win when clearly, however much of that was involved, sexism was a far larger - possibly by multiples - component? I guess people assume all sexists are racists? That's not true by a long shot. Equally loathsome crowds, but the Venn there looks far more like a sideways 8 than a 0.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If those asshats vote, yes, they vote Trump. But how many of those clowns are out there? A few million wingnuts? Maybe ten? (And how many are barred felons?)

I don't see any responsible statistical basis for the assertion Trump was overwhelmingly elected by racists.

Your argument that racists provided the little bit needed to win is true. Trump needed every group he that voted for him to win in 2016 as his margin was so thin. But that would mean that if he somehow lost, say, the military vote, or the tax voters, he would not have won. Every group he had was essential. Racists were one slice of a big, very strange pizza.

I'd totally agree with articles that said, "But for the Racists, No Trump." I think the math to support that is out there (with the caveat I just noted).

OTOH, articles saying, "It's Not the Economic Anxiety; It's the Racism," are stretching the point. It's both, among a lot of other shit. Much of it bizarre.

ETA: And the sexists! Fuck, how did I forget the sexists. Shit, that's a huge part of Trump's vote. In fact, how did racism become the favored narrative explaining Trump's win when clearly, however much of that was involved, sexism was a far larger - possibly by multiples - component? I guess people assume all sexists are racists? That's not true by a long shot. Equally loathsome crowds, but the Venn there looks far more like a sideways 8 than a 0.

What's happening is those folks are becoming perhaps the most important part of the Republican party because they are highly motivated and well financed; remember, Republican primaries in 2020, a high-turnout year, totaled about 18 million voters. Now revisit the "maybe 10 million" number you had - that's a number that, with high motivation, can dominate that process.

Today, I suspect you can count on one hand the Republicans who can be elected without enthusiastic backing from that constituency. Certainly here in Massachusetts, they chased an otherwise popular Republican governor from oiffice.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

What's happening is those folks are becoming perhaps the most important part of the Republican party because they are highly motivated and well financed; remember, Republican primaries in 2020, a high-turnout year, totaled about 18 million voters. Now revisit the "maybe 10 million" number you had - that's a number that, with high motivation, can dominate that process.

Today, I suspect you can count on one hand the Republicans who can be elected without enthusiastic backing from that constituency. Certainly here in Massachusetts, they chased an otherwise popular Republican governor from oiffice.

Oh, I totally agree the loons are essential. But they also punch above their weight in primaries and often wind up costing the GOP in the generals.

They pissed away the Governor's mansion here by nominating a person so insane none but the most hardened social conservatives and election deniers will vote for him.

The Democrats here also ran ads for the crazy fucker to ensure they'd get to run against a certain loser. Some people would call that sort of gamesmanship an example of what's wrong with politics, but there are two other adjectives that fit: genius, and pretty fucking funny.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If those asshats vote, yes, they vote Trump. But how many of those clowns are out there? A few million wingnuts? Maybe ten? (And how many are barred felons?)

I don't see any responsible statistical basis for the assertion Trump was overwhelmingly elected by racists.

Your argument that racists provided the little bit needed to win is true. Trump needed every group he that voted for him to win in 2016 as his margin was so thin. But that would mean that if he somehow lost, say, the military vote, or the tax voters, he would not have won. Every group he had was essential. Racists were one slice of a big, very strange pizza.

I'd totally agree with articles that said, "But for the Racists, No Trump." I think the math to support that is out there (with the caveat I just noted).

OTOH, articles saying, "It's Not the Economic Anxiety; It's the Racism," are stretching the point. It's both, among a lot of other shit. Much of it bizarre.

ETA: And the sexists! Fuck, how did I forget the sexists. Shit, that's a huge part of Trump's vote. In fact, how did racism become the favored narrative explaining Trump's win when clearly, however much of that was involved, sexism was a far larger - possibly by multiples - component? I guess people assume all sexists are racists? That's not true by a long shot. Equally loathsome crowds, but the Venn there looks far more like a sideways 8 than a 0.

One: Trump was not elected by racists. Millions of racists voted for him, but he was elected by people who voted third party.

Two: I agree with you on the rich/poor white people thing. But the racists, to the extent they voted, went Trump.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

One: Trump was not elected by racists. Millions of racists voted for him, but he was elected by people who voted third party.

I mean, let's be clear. Trump lost the popular vote, big time, twice. No one else has lost twice as badly as he has since Adlai Stevenson. He is a huge loser, who got the job because of Electoral College, not because he persuaded more people to support him.