Trump won because of racial resentment (studies find)

[Phelly2]

The article is bullshit. Obama got a higher percentage of white votes then Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale. The white vote counts as less of a percentage of overall electorate votes each election cycle as immigration and changes in family size effect the demographics. To think that white people said "I'm voting for the whitest candidate" or some other bullshit do to "racial resentment" is garbage. Less whites voted for Obama the second go around. One look at your paycheck could tell you why. I lost $26,000+ in income over 8 years of Obama. Whether I pin that on him or the Dem Congress that started under Bush doesn't matter to me. I took a Bush era pay stub and one from the Obama era and calculated a big loss of money over 8 years. Hmmm.....do I want more of that?

The choices were a bunch of Republicans who didn't stand a chance or the Dems opposing them. We had Bernie who owns multiple properties, seems to play down his income and status, and lectures working class people on the evil "rich" while he has been a useless politician longer than most Sherdoggers have been alive. The Democratic party spiked him on his head as a sacrifice to Hillary. Hillary lied about taking sniper fire, being named after Sir Edward Hillary, not having classified e-mails on her server, etc etc and is tied to so many dirty scandals a truckload of bleach can't get her clean. Add in footage of her laughing about defending a child rapist and footage of her having seizures or such and confidence was low.

Then there's Trump. A loud-mouthed egotist who was beloved as a rich Democrat from New York. he partied with Mike Tyson and grabbed women by the PU$$Y. He flips the script and hijacks the Conversative bus. He tells Americans the he'll bring back jobs, fight illegal immigration, take on ISIS, tackle gang crime, cure cancer, give us all unicorns, etc etc and he has never held public office. Do we have to wonder why he won? It was sh*t soup, sh*t sandwich, or sh*t bisque. Nobody had tried the bisque before so they voted for it.

Exactly this.

And the ONLY reason I continue to overlook his preposterous behavior is because it pales in comparison to the leftist hysteria that has only exacerbated its outrage culture.

When the left is so eager to find the next excuse to be outraged by Trump that they’re willing to defend Anitfa’s political violence(for example), it reminds that there are greater evils than Donald Trump.

 

[Teppodama]

I don't generally gamble but I'm pretty sure I could find a study that shows this study is bullshit. I'd even go so far as to bet I could find a study that shows the study showing the 1st study is bullshit is in fact bullshit, it might even have a graph or two for impact. I could probably find a talking head or two willing to talk about how the study is wrong, or right, depending on your confirmation bias needs.

 

[RIPWarrior]

LOL I don't know what drugs you're on but I want some. Unless they turn me into a sad afraid whiner too.

Progress's finest, the shit you're on now is 10x more potent than any drug I could give you.

 

[Andy Capp]

I don't generally gamble but I'm pretty sure I could find a study that shows this study is bullshit. I'd even go so far as to bet I could find a study that shows the study showing the 1st study is bullshit is in fact bullshit, it might even have a graph or two for impact. I could probably find a talking head or two willing to talk about how the study is wrong, or right, depending on your confirmation bias needs.

Have you looked at it? There's no bullshit to be had unless they made up all the responses and never surveyed anyone. They include a breakdown of the number of respondents, their political affiliations, and the margin of error (which is what is most misleading about stats usually, leaving out the margin of error.)

It was often said political polls before the election were wrong because they over-sampled Democrats and that may be true; I really have no ides. However, this survey includes information about the leanings of each respondent.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Could you elaborate on how you drew this conclusion? It appears to be a stupid one, in the context of my half-hearted dismissal.
Specifically, could you point out how I am treating the subject as though it were taboo?

Several people in this thread, including you, have indicated that the study is somehow out of bounds or have commented on its *effects*. "that'll fix the racial resentment." General sentiment from right-wingers seems to be that stuff like this just pisses resentful whites off even more (implying that the study should not be conducted or the results should not be discussed).

 

[Teppodama]

Have you looked at it? There's no bullshit to be had unless they made up all the responses and never surveyed anyone. They include a breakdown of the number of respondents, their political affiliations, and the margin of error (which is what is most misleading about stats usually, leaving out the margin of error.)

It was often said political polls before the election were wrong because they over-sampled Democrats and that may be true; I really have no ides. However, this survey includes information about the leanings of each respondent.

Oh I don't necessarily doubt their findings but I always call into question their methodology for finding the people they poll. If you want to push a particular narrative about either the Far Right or the Far Left, you go to where those people are to conduct your survey. You don't even particularly have to hunt for those types, if you know a geographic location has a preponderance of Left or Right leaning ideology or even extreme versions of such, you can honestly say you polled random people and still have your agenda met because you're a lot more likely to find people meeting the criteria you really want for your outcome.

 

[Andy Capp]

Oh I don't necessarily doubt their findings but I always call into question their methodology for finding the people they poll. If you want to push a particular narrative about either the Far Right or the Far Left, you go to where those people are to conduct your survey. You don't even particularly have to hunt for those types, if you know a geographic location has a preponderance of Left or Right leaning ideology or even extreme versions of such, you can honestly say you polled random people and still have your agenda met because you're a lot more likely to find people meeting the criteria you really want for your outcome.

Yet, you can fully account for such bias in the survey because they include who leans what way politically. Unless you're saying they're also motivated to lie, but you can say that about pretty much everything.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't generally gamble but I'm pretty sure I could find a study that shows this study is bullshit. I'd even go so far as to bet I could find a study that shows the study showing the 1st study is bullshit is in fact bullshit, it might even have a graph or two for impact. I could probably find a talking head or two willing to talk about how the study is wrong, or right, depending on your confirmation bias needs.

This is just a statement of nihilistic tribalism. If you observe multiple studies on an issue and see that the data can reasonably justify different conclusions, it's fine to say that you have no strong opinion on the issue. But to just assume that studies that contradict a view that you reject for tribalist reasons must exist is something else entirely. That's how we get political parties that as a whole accept wildly false claims (climate science denialism, regressive tax cuts pay for themselves, etc.).

 

[Thycidides]

This is just a statement of nihilistic tribalism. If you observe multiple studies on an issue and see that the data can reasonably justify different conclusions, it's fine to say that you have no strong opinion on the issue. But to just assume that studies that contradict a view that you reject for tribalist reasons must exist is something else entirely. That's how we get political parties that as a whole accept wildly false claims (climate science denialism, regressive tax cuts pay for themselves, etc.).

There might be some tribalism at play here but mostly lack of understanding of social science and math.

It is kind of rare to learn about stats and understand how they work unless one studies the subject in college.

 

[Teppodama]

This is just a statement of nihilistic tribalism. If you observe multiple studies on an issue and see that the data can reasonably justify different conclusions, it's fine to say that you have no strong opinion on the issue. But to just assume that studies that contradict a view that you reject for tribalist reasons must exist is something else entirely. That's how we get political parties that as a whole accept wildly false claims (climate science denialism, regressive tax cuts pay for themselves, etc.).

That might be true if you were invested in the outcome either way, which I'm not. Given that I neither know those conducting the survey, those participating in it or was a witness to any part of the survey I have no reason to believe or in truth disbelieve any outcome that comes from it.

However, given my general feelings toward most things political, especially polls and surveys, I tend to veer toward the skeptical either way.

Not everything is partisan Jack, despite your apparent belief that if it doesn't agree with you it must be.

 

[Jack V Savage]

There might be some tribalism at play here but mostly lack of understanding of social science and math.

It is kind of rare to learn about stats and understand how they work unless one studies the subject in college.

I don't think that's it. That would explain other issues, but here we're looking at a common expression of faith, and it's a bad one. Again, "don't put too much stock in any one study and generally be cautious about expressing certainty on anything" is good; "believe whatever you want despite what the data you have available show because there's probably more data that justifies a different conclusion" is a really bad perversion of that first one and leads to a total disconnection from reality.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That might be true if you were invested in the outcome either way, which I'm not.

That's irrelevant to the point I'm making. You're expressing a faith that gets in the way of a true understanding of reality and supports blind partisanship, and that's true even if you claim not to be partisan.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Of course: why would you read empirical studies that are contrary to what you wish to believe?

Also, it's pretty clear that the "resentment" stems from, mostly at least, political pandering to tribalist vulnerabilities and some note of last place aversion. The moment that Barack Obama was elected, there was dog whistling....hell, not even dog whistling-- direct appeals to white nationalism and white vulnerability with no substantive basis. Anyone remember Glenn Beck in 2010 saying Obama deeply resented white people....as evidenced by the fucking Affordable Care Act?

Because he raised taxes on the top 1% to provide subsidized healthcare to needy Americans.

I highly, highly doubt there are reasonable and well-informed white/male persons who would characterize their identity as "vilified," let alone to the extent that they would vote for a moron who would torpedo basically all demographic interests besides the economic interests of a very, very tiny subset of citizens.

Was thinking you might be done reading/responding to my posts.

Based on your reasoning, we can all rest assured there's no racism against blacks/Muslims/etc. because in all the recent instances of racist graffiti making national news it turned out to be done by a member of the group supposedly being targeted. And the BLM examples show there's no problem with cops because it turns out almost all of the "victims" were failing to cooperate.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Studies: Trump won largely because of white resentment

Right-wingers: What an absurd study! It's impossible for that to happen!

Studies: Here are the numbers...

Right-wingers: Yeah well, the resentment and grievances are justified.

Once again, the very, very far right is more honest here. They straight up admit that they feel victimized and long for a dude that'll fight back and lash out at those awful darkies and their vicious twitter accounts and youtube rants about white privilege.

The pathetic ones are still crying about the studies not being legit.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Studies: Trump won largely because of white resentment

Right-wingers: What an absurd study! It's impossible for that to happen!

Studies: Here are the numbers...

Right-wingers: Yeah well, the resentment and grievances are justified.

Once again, the very, very far right is more honest here. They straight up admit that they feel victimized and long for a dude that'll fight back and lash out at those awful darkies and their vicious twitter accounts and youtube rants about white privilege.

The pathetic ones are still crying about the studies not being legit.

Or that it's not legit to do the studies or discuss them. Seeing that in addition to the denials.

 

[Andy Capp]

Exactly this.

And the ONLY reason I continue to overlook his preposterous behavior is because it pales in comparison to the leftist hysteria that has only exacerbated its outrage culture.

When the left is so eager to find the next excuse to be outraged by Trump that they’re willing to defend Anitfa’s political violence(for example), it reminds that there are greater evils than Donald Trump.

Can you cite a single instance of anybody, on Sherdog, for example, defending antifa violence?

 

[P0NYBOY]

Studies: Trump won largely because of white resentment

Right-wingers: What an absurd study! It's impossible for that to happen!

Studies: Here are the numbers...

Right-wingers: Yeah well, the resentment and grievances are justified.

Once again, the very, very far right is more honest here. They straight up admit that they feel victimized and long for a dude that'll fight back and lash out at those awful darkies and their vicious twitter accounts and youtube rants about white privilege.

The pathetic ones are still crying about the studies not being legit.

Trump won because the entire United States political system was incapable of putting forward a better candidate or even standing behind one..........or building one.

The whiners put all the eggs in the presidential basket when any poly-sci 101 student knows the power is in congress and senate.

Educate yourselves on the candidates for these "lower offices" and the presidency doesn't matter.

It's really that simple but everybody is too busy bitching and taking the easy way out........I mean the party line......and letting a couple of douches determine their stance.

 

[Trotsky]

Was thinking you might be done reading/responding to my posts.

Why? Relative to your ideological your kin, you're fairly reasonable.

Based on your reasoning, we can all rest assured there's no racism against blacks/Muslims/etc. because in all the recent instances of racist graffiti making national news it turned out to be done by a member of the group supposedly being targeted. And the BLM examples show there's no problem with cops because it turns out almost all of the "victims" were failing to cooperate.

Yes, if by my reasoning you mean some completely unrelated set of non-logic.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Why? Relative to your ideological your kin, you're fairly reasonable.



Yes, if by my reasoning you mean some completely unrelated set of non-logic.

Thanks, although I bet your grouping is flawed.

By reasoning I mean that parallel stuff. People are surprisingly poorly versed in it around here. We can just skip it then.

 

[Trotsky]

This is just a statement of nihilistic tribalism. If you observe multiple studies on an issue and see that the data can reasonably justify different conclusions, it's fine to say that you have no strong opinion on the issue. But to just assume that studies that contradict a view that you reject for tribalist reasons must exist is something else entirely. That's how we get political parties that as a whole accept wildly false claims (climate science denialism, regressive tax cuts pay for themselves, etc.).

I don't generally gamble, but I'm pretty sure I could find a post here saying this post is bullshit.