They are far from the only people who support Trump - but undereducated white males overwhelmingly supported him. As did people who prefer authoritarians. As did people who poll as racists and bigots. Doesn't mean those are ALL his supporters. But remove any of those voters as a group, and Clinton wins in a landslide.
Why did the Democrats lose the election?
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
"In the 2016 election, a wide gap in presidential preferences emerged between those with and without a college degree. College graduates backed Clinton by a 9-point margin (52%-43%), while those without a college degree backed Trump 52%-44%. This is by far the widest gap in support among college graduates and non-college graduates in exit polls dating back to 1980. For example, in 2012, there was hardly any difference between the two groups: College graduates backed Obama over Romney by 50%-48%, and those without a college degree also supported Obama 51%-47%.
Among whites, Trump won an overwhelming share of those without a college degree; and among white college graduates – a group that many identified as key for a potential Clinton victory – Trump outperformed Clinton by a narrow 4-point margin.
Trump’s margin among whites without a college degree is the largest among any candidate in exit polls since 1980. Two-thirds (67%) of non-college whites backed Trump, compared with just 28% who supported Clinton, resulting in a 39-point advantage for Trump among this group. In 2012 and 2008, non-college whites also preferred the Republican over the Democratic candidate but by less one-sided margins (61%-36% and 58%-40%, respectively)." http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...s-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/
Among whites, Trump won an overwhelming share of those without a college degree; and among white college graduates – a group that many identified as key for a potential Clinton victory – Trump outperformed Clinton by a narrow 4-point margin.
Trump’s margin among whites without a college degree is the largest among any candidate in exit polls since 1980. Two-thirds (67%) of non-college whites backed Trump, compared with just 28% who supported Clinton, resulting in a 39-point advantage for Trump among this group. In 2012 and 2008, non-college whites also preferred the Republican over the Democratic candidate but by less one-sided margins (61%-36% and 58%-40%, respectively)." http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...s-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/
You could also fairly - and equally usefully - say that racists and bigots (including sexists) - of the types Democrats pretend don't exist - vote heavily Democratic and if you remove that group, Trump's win becomes a landslide.
Democrats also like to imply the education gap between Democrats and Republicans means that higher intelligence leads one to conclude that Democratic policies are the better choice. But that is a non sequitur, since as the exit polls indicate, what the poorer/less educated want is better opportunities, which many see as coming from the Republicans. In other words, they don't vote Republican because they aren't smart, they vote Republican because Republicans have something to offer that Democrats don't.
And that issue is going to be the biggest problem for Democrats moving forward, as the support of the poor and less educated (the two go together) is they key Democratic power base. That's why their rhetoric and identity politics is aimed so heavily in that direction. If the poor no longer believe the Democrats are actually trying to help them, then there is nothing else for a Democratic candidate to offer...except, perhaps, that racism thing.
Last edited:
Well, no. If you remove all the racists, bigots and sexists, Clinton wins. If you remove all the _Democratic_ racists, bigots and sexists (a much smaller group overall) Trump definitely still wins.
It may be - but it is a non sequitur you made.
That would be difficult to prove either way since pollsters don't ask about such things, but given the monolithic nature of "the black vote", I doubt it.
But you did say "poll as racists", not "all the racists....". I know you are trying to weasel out of it now, but surely you know that the polls only poll for one kind of racist, right? I'm reasonably sure that Trump's Deplorables are the only people you were referring to there, since that's all Democrats and their pollsters believe/admit exist.
Right -- Democrats aren't trying to imply Republicans are stupid.
And the Republican vote isn't monolithic...? Who do you think you are fooling?
And your evidence of this alleged bias is where? After complaining about the victim card for so many years, I'm always amazed at how often Republicans and so called "conservatives" who are anything but conservative play it.
Right -- Democrats aren't trying to imply Republicans are stupid.
Facts matter here Russ. No one of merit has said Republicans are stupid. What they have said, is the Republican base is dominated by lesser educated white folks. The fact is were it not for the lesser educated white vote in a few states, The Donald would not be president-elect.
"In both 2008 and 2012, Republicans’ best group by far — of the five we examined — was white voters without college degrees. The GOP carried that group by 14 percentage points in 2008 and a whopping 26 points in 2012. However, these voters — who skew older and more rural — decline 3 percentage points every four years as a share of the overall electorate. In contrast, white degree-holders — who still lean Republican but are much likelier to support Democrats than whites without a degree — rise a percentage point every four years.
In other words, Democrats’ coalition of non-white, young and well-educated voters continues to expand every election, while Republicans’ coalition of white, older and less-educated voters keeps shrinking. It’s no wonder that some pundits have suggested Democrats have an emerging “stranglehold on the Electoral College” because of favorable trends in states like Colorado, Florida, Nevada, and Virginia, right?" http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-demographics-will-shape-the-2016-election/
The Republican base is being manipulated with misinformation. They haven't been to college and taught to think critically. It really is that simple. They unquestioningly believe the crap right wing entertainment feeds them every day.
In the case of older white people, they grew up in an era when all media was credible and unbiased. They grew up under the "Fairness Doctrine". So now when they hear the crap on Fox News or Republican talk radio, they believe it must be true. They have been deceived. The problem isn't their intelligence. The problem is they have been misled and deceived. They are being manipulated to their detriment.
And what is more disturbing, are the right wing efforts to legitimize the institutions critical to our democracy, e.g. the free press and mainstream media. Right wingers are being taught, through their entertainment sources, like Fox News and right wing radio to not believe anything and everything they hear or read which is outside party dogma. It's dangerous and it's insidious, and it's very undemocratic.
Last edited:
I'm not sure you understand what the word "monolithic" means or maybe just don't know the data. Upwards of 90% of blocks vote Democrat in every presidential election. No other demographic is so monolithic (uniform and consistent) ...unless you circularly create a "republican" demographic and use it to analyze who votes Republican, lol.
The polls billvon referred to are polls specifically about attitudes toward blacks. I've never seen a poll asking about attitudes toward whites. Ergo: "people who poll as racist" is always whites because black racists are not measured.
Also, the recursive error you made above exists in these polls: they ask blacks about their attitudes toward themselves.
LOL, self-contradiction, but at least we agree that you are "no one of merit".
Tell me, Joe, do you believe blacks lack critical thinking skills? Because that monolithic black voting bloc who votes heavily democratic is substantially worse educated than the average of whites.
Last edited:
LOL..
Is that the best you can do Russ....some warmed over ad hominem?
Now you want people to believe that you know how to do polling better than Nate Silver and his statisticians and polling experts? That's an extraordinary assertion; so let's see some extraordinary proofs. Why do you think it's important to ask the Klu Klux Klan if they are racists? Be honest Russ, that's a diversion. Race while it may have, and probably was a factor, it really is irrelevant. We can sit here until the cows come home and call each other racist, but where is the value in that?
Further, just because you don't like something, it doesn't follow that it is a contradiction. You are once again not being honest Russ.
I pointed out to you that blacks aren't the only "monolithic" voting block. I pointed out to you that the Republican base, i.e. lesser educated older whites, is also a monolithic voting block and that obviously causes you some heartburn. You want to accuse blacks of voting in a "monolithic" block. I just pointed out to you, they aren't the only ones who vote as a monolithic voting block and that caused you some significant heartburn as evidenced by your ad hominem.
Unfortunately for you and your so called "conservative" cohorts, facts matter.I think what kind of critical thinking skills black people do or don't have is irrelevant. That's what I think. I think this is more cultural than anything else. Minorities, especially, blacks are probably more cautious about government as government has been used to enslave and abuse them. That hasn't been the case with whites. What divides the black and white communities is culture. It isn't any ability to think critically.
The unfortunate fact for you is lesser educated whites are the Republican base. Now that obviously causes you heartburn, but whose problem is that? It ain't mine.
Just because they are lesser educated, it doesn't mean they are dumb. Hitler had some pretty smart people believing in his ideology. Critical thinking comes naturally to some; for others it's a struggle. But it needs to be taught, and if you have a 4 year college degree, you probably have at least one course. Critical thinking skills should be taught in elementary schools. It's that important. And if you are a lesser educated person, you haven't had any critical thinking training, because critical thinking isn't taught in elementary schools. That's very unfortunate. As I previously explained to you the Republican base has been and remains vulnerable to manipulation and deception.
I've seen it in my own family. My aunt as a case in point, she was a lesser educated white person. She grew up in a era when if you saw it on TV, it was trustworthy. She was ill prepared for Fox News and Republican talk radio. She was a victim of right wing propaganda. She wasn't critical of anything right wing sources told her everyday. She heard it on Fox, so by God it was true. There was no critical thinking going on there.
Last edited:
http://people.umass.edu/schaffne/schaffner_et_al_IDC_conference.pdf
In this paper, we use data from a national survey conducted during the final week of October to adjudicate between these explanations. Using unique me
asures of attitudes on racism and sexism, coupled with a question to tap into dissatisfaction with economic conditions, we are able to determine to what extent each of these explanations helped to explain vote choices in 2016 and, ultimately, whether either of these explanations can explain the education gap in votechoices among whites. We find that while economic dissatisfaction was part of the story, racismand sexism were much more important and can explain about two -thirds of the education gap among whites in the 2016 presidential vote.
Conclusion
The 2016 campaign witnessed a dramatic polarization in the vote choices of whites based on education. In this paper, we have demonstrated that very little of this gap can be explained by the economic difficulties faced by less educated whites. Rather, most of the divide appears to be the result of racism and sexism in the electorate, especially among whites without college degrees. Sexism and racism were powerful forces in structuring the 2016 presidential vote, even after controlling for partisanship and ideology. Of course, it would be misguided to seek an understanding of Trump’s success in the 2016 presidential election through any single lens. Yet,in a campaign that was marked by exceptionally explicit rhetoric on race and gender, it is perhaps unsurprising to find that voters’ attitudes on race and sex were so important in determining their vote choices
1) I am not a Democrat.
2) There are plenty of deplorables out there of all ideologies.
3) None of the above has anything to do with what I was talking about. The support Trump carried from racist and undereducated voters won him the election. You may not like this, but trying to change the subject to who "deplorables" are won't change that.
Oh, both sides try to imply the other side is stupid all the time. Again, nothing to do with the topic at hand.Right -- Democrats aren't trying to imply Republicans are stupid.
Such dishonesty, Sculptor, is significant. You did, in fact, prescribe corrective treatment↑.
Why are you so afraid of your own posts that you must lie about them?
You shouldn't lie, Sculptor. Such deliberately provocative behavior is stupid―that is to say, of grotesquely and dangerously uneducated pretense―and worse than simply worthless.
Why go out of your way to be detrimental to this or any community?
No, really, I'm curious: What reward do you think you get out of behaving antisocially?
What pitch does your inner dishonesty sell you? Really, if behaving this way is some manner of virtue, what is that goodness you or anyone else gets from your dishonesty?
That's the basic position the Republicans have been in since 1968, when the Nameless Faction moved in on the Party. But since it was their idea in the first place, they had the advantage of first choice of identity, and picked white fundies and bigots - a geographically well-arranged third of the electorate right off the bat, and an easily manipulated third because it was a profitable advertising target (getting big money on board was no problem at all, a lot of the media operations could be self-financing, etc).
And the racism thing worked really well for them, excusing and obscuring all manner of incompetence and non-delivery of benefits and disaster - even actual exploitation, overt robbery.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Tiassa, here's the reply after I edited out all of your negative crap:
You don't get it, and most likely never will.
Psychology was one of my degrees----(as an offshoot of/to anthropology)
So when I see peculiar behaviours, I respond as trained.
Statistically, the outliers are usually the most interesting.
ok
.......................................
How many Rogerian therapists does it take to change a lightbulb?
..................
How many Rogerians would it take to heal the "democratic" party?
You don't get it, and most likely never will.
Psychology was one of my degrees----(as an offshoot of/to anthropology)
So when I see peculiar behaviours, I respond as trained.
Statistically, the outliers are usually the most interesting.
ok
.......................................
How many Rogerian therapists does it take to change a lightbulb?
..................
How many Rogerians would it take to heal the "democratic" party?
Sculptor, it is a strange appeal to authority when attempting to manipulate facts.
Nothing you said changes the fact that you deliberately misrepresented↑ your own post↑.
In fact, citing yourself as a psychological authority when attempting to perform a dishonest maneuver actually makes it worse.
Stupid is as stupid does.
We know what the educational level comparison shows. What's the correlation between educational credentials and IQ, in your best guess?
Well I don't know, Joe; in order for me to agree or disagree with something Nate Silver has said, you'd first have to post it so I can read it! So instead of whining and deflection, how about posting some actual content?
I googled "The Black Vote" and got 400,000 hits. Then I googled "the lesser educated older white vote" and got zero hits. So clearly, you pulled that out of thin air. But I'll bite: by what margin does that group vote Republican? And, of course, I'll need a source.
It's your argument, Joe -- you want to have it one way but not the other. If under-educated whites vote Republican because they lack the critical thinking skills to make a "better" choice (vote Democrat), then it should be equally fair to say the inverse. And since I know you're a fair guy, I'm sure you also believe that under-educated blacks vote Democrat because they lack the critical thinking skills to make a better choice.
Me said:
Based on your choice of source to respond to the question I asked, I'll take that as an acknowledgment that you understand that white racism is heavily studied, but black racism is largely ignored. Glad we're in agreement.
That isn't what you said, but per my previous statement that since the election was close, anyone could claim a small focused group of a few thousand people or a specific issue flipped the election....which is pretty useless.
No, we're not. Black racism is studied as well; if you'd like some links to articles I'd be happy to give you them. As an influencer on elections it is a very small factor - because blacks in the US make up 12% of the population. And as an overall social issue it is also a small factor, both because they are a small population and because traditionally anti-black discrimination has been a huge problem in the US, and anti-white discrimination has not been.
Well, again, no. A medium sized group of tens of thousands PER STATE (i.e. a group of hundreds of thousands to half a million across all states) could flip the election. This is because win margins in the tossup states ranged from 11,000 to 68,000. So a "few thousand people" changing in any one of those states would have made zero difference.
Yes, please.
For example, I googled "black racism election poll" (no quotes) and all of the first 10 links were about white racism, not black racism. Then I put "black racism" in quotes and it didn't help. "Anti-white racism" with "election poll" at least got the subject to the right thing, but didn't really provide relevant polls on the election.
That claim requires data. Due to the uniformity of the black voting bloc, it has a much greater potential power than its population fraction would indicate. Just how big that power is depends on the racism fraction in the voting patterns.
Last edited:
The election wasn't particularly close - several have been closer, in popular and electoral vote both. You have been informed of your error there, with links to the actual numbers, twice now.
The better explanations are those that account for the bulk of the votes, or the bulk of the winning margin, by both correlation and mechanism.
So while "anyone" can make bullshit claims of course, if you restrict your attention to claims that make sense the field of explanations shrinks dramatically.
There's a real art to phrasing a Google search so that it gives you zero hits on such a well-documented topic.
here: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-trump-got-his-edge/
Last edited: