Racism...Forever?

YOUR WELCOME

 

Come on now, this thread is supposed to be MAGA-free.

 

I agree?

 

Engineer humor is hard to understand, for the rest of us.

 

Okay.

 

I doubt that anybody but you understands your previous two posts. In other words, yet another day on bigsoccer.com.

 

I invite you to explain yours. Or mine, if you like.

 

Cor blimey is outdated, English-related slang, as is Blighty.

 

I'm guessing the missing apostrophe in post 10276 might have something to do with the MAGA line.

Its not like thats an exclusively Trump-supporters trait.

 

So?

 

Ah, I see.

Known Trump fanboi (THIS IS SARCASM) Michael Malice uses it all the time. Here it was invoked as a throwaway, which the whole "cor, blimey" also appeared to be.

 

1107990942273945601 is not a valid tweet id

 

You think there's only one explanation?

 

Womens' World Cup?

 

The second is bull. The first might be true ... but Hillary had strengths as a candidate too. Maybe, but I am skeptical of the claim.. People always say that about the candidate who loses. They certainly would have of Trump if he had lost.

The third I think is the best. Before Donald Trump, few people understood how much power there was in running a Presidential campaign based on open anger.. Nate Silver, to cite one example, thought it was bizarre that late in the campaign, while trailing in the polls, Trump "unleashed" himself with Twitterstorm attacks. I don't think Trump's tactics were calculated, he's a pure emotion guy, but there was indeed some method to the maden ess.

 

What does that mean? That anyone who said/says that is lying?

But none of this answers the question I asked, so I'll ask it again: you think there's only one explanation?

 

There is always "economic anxiety." Every election, there are people without jobs, worried about their jobs, who want to make money etc. In the 2016 election there were fewer than in, say, 1984 or 1992 or 2008.

So there's no reason to think that "economic anxiety" was the tipping point. Plus nobody ever writes about the African-Americans and Hispanic voters who have economic anxiety, and yet who did not vote for Donald Trump. Funny how that went, they were economically anxious and yet they rejected the candidate for those who were economically anxious.

This election was about "he understands people like me." And no, I don't think Hillary was the perfect candidate. But neither was Daddy Bush and he won, easily.

OK, to address your question -

1) The candidate mattered some
2) No, I do not believe a single bit that this election was decided by "economic anxiety." Less than zero.
3) White identity mattered a lot.

I have left out some stuff that mattered too, such as Comey tarring Hillary but not Trump. That alone was enough to turn the election. But the election was so close that many things were enough to turn it.

 

That didn't answer my question; neither did what you wrote later. It's a yes or no question, really, so I'm befuddled as to why it's so hard for you to answer. If someone were to say "I voted for Donald Trump because I was very concerned about my economic situation and I thought he'd do the best job of improving it," are you saying that that person would be lying, because there's no possibility that someone actually thought that? Yes or no.

I'm sorry, but this is lazy thinking. To say that something like concern over one's economic prospects is an issue for someone

1. does not mean that it's the only issue that person faces or perceives;
2. does not mean that person gives it the same priority that someone else does, relative to all the other issues each individual faces;
3. does not mean that all people with that issue arrive at the same conclusion as to how best to fix it.

That was absolutely a factor. But anyone who picks one thing, no matter what that one thing is, and says "this happened because of _______" is being lazy.

I agree completely with your last sentence -- which is why I think it's silly to pick any one thing and say "that's why it happened".

 

The salient item is that white voters thought that Donald Trump would help them, and minority voters thought that Hillary Clinton would help them. If the campaign were truly about the economy, then the people who cared about economic anxiety wouldn't have voted along color lines.

To once again address your question, what people say or even believed is immaterial. Not when we can directly measure their actions.

I mean, I can't even believe we're talking about this. Elizabeth Warren is all about the working class and alleviating economic anxiety, that is her background and her policies. Her entire political existence is about that very thing. And she won't get a hearing in West Virginia. Everybody knows that, and everybody knows why she will fail. You know why too.

 

yes.

 

And yet, Trump tweets bigger fibs than that before most people get out of bed on a daily basis.

 

Saying you can directly measure something like that and ACTUALLY measuring something like that are in different zip codes of reality.

 

If you mean "help" in a broad sense -- improve their overall circumstance in life -- then that's likely mostly true, yes.

If you mean "help" in a strictly economic sense, you're making logical leaps.

It's lazy to say the campaign was "about" any one thing.

No, that's *one* possibility that undoubtedly applied for some people. Another is that the relative ranking of concern about their economic state/futures (compared to other issues they faced) differed.

It's not immaterial, since in the circumstance I've cited, the only *action* you have at your disposal is their vote. So I'll ask yet another time: if someone says that concern about their economic prospects was the reason they voted for Donald Trump, do you assert that they're lying?

I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying here. Are you seriously suggesting that Hillary Clinton's inability to carry West Virginia was a significant factor in her loss?