Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

Even 538 has made note of this where his supporters are mostly highschool educated or less, not sure if they've made an analysis on income. They probably have....

[Reelya]

That's what I was talking about with blinkered thinking. Mainiac wants to demonize/delegitimize Trump supporters as much as possible, even if it goes against almost all citable sources. That sort of ingroup/outgroup division thinking is the very thing which I said makes understanding what's going on all the harder.

As they say "Know thine enemy". Painting a strawman just means you're constantly fighting phantoms and going to keep being blindsided by events: constantly going "how is this happening? Everyone must be wrongthinkers/no-goods". By delegitimizing Trump voters as greedy amoral richfolk, you can both backslap yourself for being righteous while preventing yourself having to understand what's actually going on.

But the basic fact is, richfolk aren't going to see a benefit in Trump's policies. They don't want walls and tarriffs and trade wars. They are flocking to Clinton.

[smjjames]

Hey come on, I'm trying to find stuff on income.....

Also, I'm not the one de-legitimatizing Trump supporters as crazy richfolk, Maniac is the one doing that.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/religion-and-education-explain-the-white-vote/ shows a bit of a skew on the upper end of the income scale towards trump, but that really isn't comprehensive. Although the entire point of the article is that income is the least predictive of Trump supporters, which debunks what maniac was trying to get at I think.

[Reelya]

[quote-mainiac]Rural voters in places like Vermont and Minnesota or eastern Maryland [/quote]

Vermont is rural, but it also has average income above the US average. Minnesota is significantly above average, as is Maryland. They may be rural, but they're more affluent places than the average US citizen.

Find a place that's both poor and rural that voted Clinton and you may have a case. Wealthy rural places voting Clinton doesn't disprove that poor rural people are heavily pro-Trump.

[mainiac]

You're cherry picking sources, Mainiac.

No, you are comparing apples to oranges.  But not doing it well.  For instance apples are red while oranges are not would be a good comparison.

What you are doing is comparing a sample of 1002 adults months before a primary with exit polls all across the country.  There are so many problems here I can only barely scratch the surface.  For one thing, primaries have really low turnout.  A survey of adults is a horrible metric.  Only 362 people in the sample were registered republicans.  Half of them aren't going to vote.  Of that half that do vote, less then half are Trump voters.  So now your sample size is 90 people.  And you are doing cross tabs on 90 people.

For another thing the data is just not representative of what we know the demographics of the republican primary electorate looks like.  Which is because the sample of actual primary voters is mixed in with a sample of non primary supporters.

Exit polls are way better.

Yeah, all these rich people who skipped college.

Yes, more educated people tend to be more liberal while more wealthy people tend to be conservative.  And yes educated people tend to be more wealthy.  There is no contradiction here.  These are well known facts of american elections.

I suggest you git gud.

That's what I was talking about with blinkered thinking. Mainiac wants to demonize/delegitimize Trump supporters as much as possible

No dude, I just like knowing what is actually what.  And I really dislike people who pass off shitty stereotypes as better then real studies.

Remember when Neovick said that republicans were poor and I said "no dude, here are some exit polls" and he was all like "thanks dude, but did you consider this?" and I was all like "here man" and he was all like "I am going to understand this new information".  Yeah, that was cool.  Made me feel all warm and fuzzy 'n shit.

Remember when you were all like "grrrrr, I'm gonna double down on my stereotypes and attack the messenger".  Yeah, that wasn't cool.

Find a place that's both poor and rural that voted Clinton

Which Clinton.  Bill Clinton?  That dude won broad swathes of the country.  Hill Clinton?  Hasn't run in the general election yet.

[Reelya]

Where's your data then, i see you're not presenting anything.

"git gud" means you're strategy of unsourced claims then, because nobody can check them.

Which Clinton.  Bill Clinton?  That dude won broad swathes of the country.  Hill Clinton?  Hasn't run in the general election yet.

WTF man, it was what you wrote.

[mainiac]

Where's your data then, i see you're not presenting anything.

"git gud" means you're strategy of unsourced claims then, because nobody can check them.

The 538 article you said was "cherrypicking".  It's exit poll driven.  Which I'm sure you understand because you read it and understood it before criticizing it.  Just like I looked into the crosstabs of your poll (six weeks before the first caucus) before I pointed out the problem with trying to overmine the crosstabs.

[smjjames]

You're cherry picking sources, Mainiac.

No, you are comparing apples to oranges.  But not doing it well.  For instance apples are red while oranges are not would be a good comparison.

What you are doing is comparing a sample of 1002 adults months before a primary with exit polls all across the country.  There are so many problems here I can only barely scratch the surface.  For one thing, primaries have really low turnout.  A survey of adults is a horrible metric.  Only 362 people in the sample were registered republicans.  Half of them aren't going to vote.  Of that half that do vote, less then half are Trump voters.  So now your sample size is 90 people.  And you are doing cross tabs on 90 people.

For another thing the data is just not representative of what we know the demographics of the republican primary electorate looks like.  Which is because the sample of actual primary voters is mixed in with a sample of non primary supporters.

Exit polls are way better.

I agree the exit polls would give a better snapshot overall, but we won't get that until Nov. 8th.

Hill Clinton?  Hasn't run in the general election yet.

You mean hasn't won the general election yet, she's running it right now.

Pulling this down to here in case it got missed earlier:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/religion-and-education-explain-the-white-vote/ shows a bit of a skew on the upper end of the income scale towards trump, but that really isn't comprehensive. Although the entire point of the article is that income is the least predictive of Trump supporters, which debunks what maniac was trying to get at I think.

[Reelya]

Well wasn't your point about the three states of Vermont, Minnesota and Maryland that they disprove that rural people vote Trump? That was the context in which you name-dropped those states, then when I commented about them you act like you're unaware of the context.

Then you ask "which Clinton" in an absolutely insane level of trolling right there. George Clinton from his time as the leader of Funkadelic, clearly, duh. Who do you think? We're discussing the election and Trump vs Clinton, duh!

So what is the relevant data? Are they rural places? Check. Do they poll for Hillary Clinton? Check. Are they poor. Not by a longshot. All three states are wealthier than the national average. I assume because you name-dropped those three specific states that they're the outliers which don't fit the "poor rural types vote Trump" claim which we were discussing. But they're clearly outside of that pattern for the good reason that they're quite affluent states, despite being rural.

[mainiac]

I agree the exit polls would give a better snapshot overall, but we won't get that until Nov. 8th.

We have the exit polls from the primaries.

which debunks what maniac was trying to get at I think.

What, it's just the same crosstabs.  Compare that chart to this exit poll and you see a lot of the same stuff: http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/exit-polls

A big thing you have to keep in mind is that once Trump became the nominee he consolidated the straight ticket republican vote.  Not all of it but most of it.  Thus the answer of what makes someone vote Trump in the primary is a different proposition from what makes someone vote Trump in the general.

Then you ask "which Clinton"

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have never run in a race against each other.  Thus I cant point to rural areas that Hillary Clinton beat Trump in yet because Hillary Clinton hasn't beaten Trump anywhere yet.

Hence my asking for clarification.

[smjjames]

As far as the income stuff go, these sources http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/who-are-donald-trumps-supporters-really/471714/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/ http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/09/09/who_are_trumps_supporters.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/12/a-massive-new-study-debunks-a-widespread-theory-for-donald-trumps-success/ show that income really isn't a major correlation, and one table in the 538 one (this was during the primaries however) shows that Trumps support as far as income, is actually more spread out compared to the other two contenders at the time.

I agree the exit polls would give a better snapshot overall, but we won't get that until Nov. 8th.

We have the exit polls from the primaries.

Yeah, but those have lower turnout and you've got competition from two other people.

which debunks what maniac was trying to get at I think.

What, it's just the same crosstabs.  Compare that chart to this exit poll and you see a lot of the same stuff: http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/exit-polls

A big thing you have to keep in mind is that once Trump became the nominee he consolidated the straight ticket republican vote.  Not all of it but most of it.  Thus the answer of what makes someone vote Trump in the primary is a different proposition from what makes someone vote Trump in the general.

I may have missed what you're trying to prove or disprove here.

[Reelya]

538 did say that income was the "least predictive" measure, so perhaps that is moot. After all some polls say richfolk like Clinton, others say Trump. If high income predicted voting for Trump I think 538 would have worded that much differently than "least predictive".

The rural thing is a solid predictor however, as you move from the city center out to the country, it consistently shifts to Trump and away from Clinton:

http://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/490240652/is-rural-resentment-driving-voters-to-donald-trump

[RedKing]

On further reflection, 2012 isn't a good test case for 2016. 2012 was, by and large, an economics election. 2016 is not. Thus, the demographic breakdowns aren't going to parallel 2012.

Poor whites may have been more inclined to vote Obama, if they agreed with the message that Romney was out of touch with average folks and only served the uber-rich. This time around, those same people may be buying into the notion that somehow, Trump is going to fight those moneyed elites (I'm not saying it has to make sense, I'm saying this is what people tell themselves) that Romney represented.

Ultimately, we may not have a great picture of the Trump demographic until a post-mortem on the exit votes this time around is completed.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I would point out that, regardless of the actual electoral consequences, the horrifying economic despair of rural America is very real and not being dealt with by either party. Hence my original call for radical remodling.

[smjjames]

538 did say that income was the "least predictive" measure, so perhaps that is moot. After all some polls say richfolk like Clinton, others say Trump. If high income predicted voting for Trump I think 538 would have worded that much differently than "least predictive".

The rural thing is a solid predictor however, as you move from the city center out to the country, it consistently shifts to Trump and away from Clinton:

http://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/490240652/is-rural-resentment-driving-voters-to-donald-trump

Rural is also a pretty solid predictor for Republican however. Would be good to know how much the city Republicans are supporting Trump vs how much the rural Republicans are supporting Trump.

I would point out that, regardless of the actual electoral consequences, the horrifying economic despair of rural America is very real and not being dealt with by either party. Hence my original call for radical remodling.

Economic or Political or both? Though obviously economic remodelling is needed and politics generally follows the economics.