Also the idea that America will be not white majority anytime soon is absurd since in order to do so you have to claim that all Hispanics are not white which is not true.

Irrelevant and misses knyte's point about Trump's racist supporters (though they are not all, nor probably the majority, they *are* a significant constituent).

Also you should not be in the wrong states if you want to avoid racism. You will fit in nice here for example.

More missing the point.

In terms of economy you should support Republicans. :3

Either a joke, or simply wrong. Can't tell. (Not that Dems under Clinton would be much better, if at all.)

If racism is such a problem we can probably seek a solution by claiming some parts of Antarctica or the Moon for all civilized and advanced peoples. If America becomes an intolerant land this is what I will promote.

Whut? *scratches head*

especially among these people, racial anxiety beat the economy as their motivation.

Then why did they vote for Obama and not Clinton?

barring a complete and utter economic collapse

I think you're underestimating the probability of such an event.

Edited 11/27/2016 00:10:58

Knyte, that image you posted had 25,000 participants in it. I mean, who even did this poll, where did they poll, what were their methods?

Yes, because I'm the Nazi now

Well you did say you wanted to exterminate all rural folk.

You are not brown, come on. You are an East Indian engineer. Your position is certainly better than those who are actually brown, I mean the mestizos.

Tabby, why are you buying into racialism? (Also, you're still missing knyte's point. I doubt he cares whether he's 'brown' or whatever. The problem is that *other people* do, and try to use that against him.)

Then why did they vote for Obama and not Clinton?

Clinton was the first president to even use the words "systematic racism" in a speech. Obama, on the other hand, famously told black Americans to "pull up their pants."

Notice the backlash Obama's gotten every time he's sided with Trayvon Martin or some section of BLM- especially from places like rural MI, WI, PA. It's very consistent with people voting in Obama because they thought a black President would finally fix "race relations" (i.e., black America complaining about systematic and structural racism it's continuously faced for over 200 years now) and getting mad at him when black America didn't quiet down. Remember all the times Obama got called the "most racist President ever" and got attacked for "terrible race relations"? That's consistent with data indicating that white Americans wanted him to focus on them more.

Moreover, Obama did fail to deliver on his promises on manufacturing jobs. Because no one can deliver on a promise like that. It's been a fairly consistent cycle, really, of the Reagan Democrats switching allegiances every 8-10 years.

That's why there was so much analysis of economic anxiety at first- I thought it was the case, too, because I got really fed up of sites like Slate, Salon, and SketchyLiberalSite#494304 telling us that it all boiled down to racism and sexism. And after all, rural Rust Belt America is doomed.

But that doesn't hold up when you look at policies, when you look at awareness, when you look at the attitudes that chunk of America did express when held up to the microphone. We're seeing economic crisis (in rural America) combined with ignorance to result in racial anxiety, because "build a wall and you get your jobs back" is a hell of a lot easier to sell than "okay, you're going to get a few years of training and then you'll be ready to shift to a different industry."

It's always an uphill battle for policy vs. populism, and I don't think any coalition built on the Reagan Democrats (now Trump Republicans) can expect to survive for long for that reason- race and class anxiety will always triumph over good policy with a demographic that frankly can't be really expected to favor policy over populism.

I think you're underestimating the probability of such and event.

I think you're overestimating it. :P As long as our economy doesn't like straight-up hit rock bottom (and I mean rock bottom, so bad that even tech doesn't have a fighting chance even with all the non-vaporware it's been delivering) by the end of next summer, all that changes is the view from inside my nice, cozy bubble.

Note, foreign policy overrode everything else in this election. Clinton, was going to fight Russia, and there's no question that that would be the outcome, with Russian's preparing military buildups on the borders and Clinton saying that mysterious Russian hackers were a declaration of war on the US. If the US warred Russia; it's over. The whole world would be at war, economies would grind to a halt, civil liberties would be lost globally, and most importantly, millions would die, from Asia to Europe to Africa and the Middle East. Anyone who blatantly ignores this reality is much more apathetic than any Trump supporter who didn't care that someone punched you in the third grade.

@MGSB: It was a hypothetical. And when Eklipse suggested that the rest of us are doomed without rural America, I only said I wished I had the means to demonstrate otherwise- not to actually exterminate a third of our economy.

I also found the data I'd promised earlier: http://electionado.com/canvas/1479173071893

I think this lays out a fairly compelling case. If you're interested in asking questions about methodology, etc., I believe those are answered in the poll itself. Feel free to challenge that if you'd like.


And again, if you voted against Clinton out of foreign policy concerns, I think your analysis is very, very off- but that's not what I'd like to spend effort discussing right now. My "disdain" is primarily directed at voters who were driven by racial anxiety.

Edited 11/27/2016 00:07:02

But Trump was driven by racial anxiety far, far more than Romney (whose poll numbers did not correlate nearly as strongly with racial anxiety), McCain, etc., and that's just something we have to acknowledge at this point.

Then why did Trump get a larger share of both the black and latino vote than Romney did? Why did Clinton do worse with these groups than Obama did? (To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with racial anxiety being a big factor in this election, just with your interpretation of the evidence of just *how* important it was to Trump supporters of various stripes.)

@wct: Turnout (there was a reduction in polling locations by over 800 in states no longer monitored under the VRA), economic anxiety, Comey, and a lot of other factors. Keep in mind that those figures are also from preliminary counts; I haven't been following a lot of demographic breakdowns of the vote since the election (like I said, it's worthwhile to move on) so I don't even know whether it's still the case that Trump significantly outperformed polls when it came to minority voters.

I'd recommend just looking at this: http://electionado.com/canvas/1479173071893

I think it's at the very least fairly clear that economic anxiety and foreign policy concerns were not the primary drivers of the Trump vote.

Edited 11/27/2016 00:11:06

This is a tweetstorm based on analysis of some preliminary data tied to the 2016 election.

Note, if this is just a bunch of things from twitter compiled up, I doubt that this proves a significant portion Trump supporters are racist. I mean, how many trump supporters are on twitter?

I'd recommend actually reading it. It is not what you just said it is. :) A Tweetstorm is just a series of tweets- electionado's canvas just compiles them together. That does not mean the author's primary citations are tweets by Trump supporters; it just means that this was initially posted on Twitter.

Not the best format, but it does have links/citations and the data does check out.

I usually don't like being the guy who says "here's an article link, go read it" so I picked something that's fairly quick to read and doesn't get too verbose. :)

If you want an article, though, I can provide that too.

Edited 11/27/2016 00:25:40

Knyte, what do you make of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K8bf6dbYt4

I'm not in favor of capitalism in the long run; it's just a question of how we transition to worker control over the means of production.

@Tabby: I'm not throwing any of those groups under the bus, sorry. We're either all here as equals or none of us are.

while banning illegal immigration

Also, have you ever thought about how poorly analyzed your own policy proposals are? Maybe you're not as smart as you give yourself credit for. :^)

Edited 11/27/2016 00:35:05

I see the first mistake he makes; one, the typical republican economic platform isn't be espoused by Trump, and deregulation and free trade are different things. Trump is for deregulation and less free trade (the US doesn't have free trade), you can't simply say republicans are for laissez faire and apply that to Trump, and say trade isn't a concern.

Then he moves to sexism in Trump support. Well I ask, what is sexism in this case? Is it not wanting abortion, subsidized feminine things and having troubles with women? Believing women are inferior?

Then he moves to immigration concerns; well I have to ask, you know that immigration is a primarily economic concern, correct? I know that folk who don't have to worry about either being a welfare bum or starving tend to focus on immigrants being some shade darker than beige, but the taking of jobs is defintely a concern. From my experience, working class rural folk tend to worry about immigration regardless of being white, black or Hispanic.

Finally, if white folk voting like a minority is bad, why do you not decry blacks and Hispanics voting in blocs?

Just saying, Knyte and Tabby are in the same region of insanity in my opinion.

I don't think you're familiar with economic analysis of his plan (or Bernie's own economic illiteracy- this is a candidate who assumed that the volume of high-frequency trades would remain unchanged after instituting a tax on high-frequency trading)- we're talking about a deficit like we've never seen before.

So, you're saying that the richest country on the planet can't afford to educate its citizens the way many other less-rich countries already do? Where is all that money going?

Taking away the ability to care for your children is morally bankrupt

I don't think even you would argue against government taking children away from a parent that tries to kill them.

this is irridian haha

Xapy, I tried looking that up in google and thefreedictionary but only got some industrial company.

Irridium is the rarest element in the Earth's skin, and it's a phrase in Kazakh.

No point arguing with someone who doesn't even have a basic moral compass to relate to.

as someone who has talked with knyte about mores, this is untrue. But I think he is irked that folk dig themselves into a hole and he just won't even try anymore.

Back in March- I shit you not- it was just links to YouTube videos of him ranting about Mexico and China.

March? you mean 8 months or so before the picks?

The same data which practically guaranteed a Clinton victory?

it was 7:3 odds, I don't know if it's just socialists being way overconfident or conserves exxagerating things, but it was a good enough likelihood Trump wins.

Too bad the voters didn't have a chance to vote for Bernie's free college tuition plan, eh?

university is a luxury. First should be reformed the free teaching sistema before trying to make more teaching free. And it already is free, to some extent. It certainly is accessible to anyone who is willing to take loans (and it's sensible enough - the jobs you get with university diplomes are much higher-paying than the ones without), and it already is free if you get certain scholarships and grants from government that have been about since Spootnik-1.

Knyte and Tabby are in the same region of insanity in my opinion.

There's some screenshot of the OT forum summed up pretty well. Karl says something like "nice shitpost, kike"; Tabby says something about Jews being awesome, and MGSB says "taxation is theft.". All in a row.

you're somewhere in the same.

you're saying that the richest country on the planet can't afford to educate its citizens the way many other less-rich countries already do

it's not affordable in other countries, it's very expensive and leads to just jobless folk who don't want to accept lower work since they think it's beneath them. Not also saying that America is not the richest country on Earth, whether looked on by wholeness or relevantly by head, and it already is I think the top spender on teaching on Earth, both by wholeness, and by each student.

Edited 11/27/2016 00:53:41

Irridium is the rarest element in the Earth's skin, and it's a phrase in Kazakh.

Ah, spelling mistake then (for English, at least). It's Iridium, from iris, thus iridian, which apparently means "relating to the iris of the eye; relating to a rainbow".

Still don't get your comment, but whatever.

@Knyte: have you actually watched the video? It's not just a headline. It's relevant to this disucssion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K8bf6dbYt4

[@Tabby: I downvoted your comment, since it's ad hominem, poisoning the well, and adds nothing to the discussion.]

Edited 11/27/2016 01:11:40

Juq is a troll. Please do not take his OT posts seriously.

I'm not a troll. If it's something, it's an alcohol admiral.