[kenberg]

 awm, on 2016-October-16, 15:09, said:

Not sure I really agree with the article that Helene posted. It's actually true that Trump's candidacy is to a great degree supported by non-college-educated whites. Here's a poll from August for example that has Trump leading 51-26 among non-college whites and losing 33-47 among college-educated whites. Of course you can find millions of non-college whites voting for Hillary (26% of millions of people is a lot) and you can find college-educated whites (or even college educated blacks or latinos) who are voting for Trump. Generalizing about large groups of people often leads to misconceptions; I can understand why someone who's from a poor white background and doesn't support Trump might be offended by such a generalization, but that doesn't contradict the fact that people from similar backgrounds are supporting him in large numbers.

But I think it is fair to ask why a candidate who seems so repulsive in so many ways has such a significant base of support (yes, he will probably lose, but he will still get maybe 60 million votes). And when we ask this question, it makes sense to interview the less educated white voters (where he has a substantial majority) rather than ask (to give an amusing example) the one Trump-supporting African-American teen in Illinois that the LA Times persists on polling.

"But I think it is fair to ask why a candidate who seems so repulsive in so many ways has such a significant base of support"

I think that it is not only fair, I think it is important. And I think the article was a useful contribution to understanding. I'll give a few thoughts of my own rather than try to channel the author.

For one thing, "non-college educated" is like "non-white". It says what someone is not rather than what someone is. Many years ago I had a neighbor whose racial make-up was part Black and part Native American. I am just guessing here, but my guess is that he would have accepted either classification, probably reluctantly, but he would have bristled at Non-White.

And then consider: The people in charge of these polls and surveys are, probably, college educated. The newspaper articles and opinion pieces are for the most part written by people with college degrees. So it comes out like this. We the Us have polled people. We have found that when we poll the Us, they agree with Us. These are the correct views. When we poll the non-Us, they hold other views, the wrong views. Let's assume the polls are accurate since, broadly, I imagine that they are. The optics are still a problem. I can well imagine a non-college educated person, married, job holding, raising kids, saying "Hey, I have an idea. Let's group people by whether or not they are self-supporting rather than by which degree they have." This is not some wild fantasy. I went to college because I wanted to, my parents, especially me father, saw little point in it. I was brought up to be self-supporting. That was important. College? Ok. Can't see why, but ok.

The author speaks of "the wings of moral superiority". Well, with Donald Trump nobody has to worry about any wings of moral superiority. I am not entirely joking here. A childhood memory: My parents were lax about church attendance and the minister was over berating them about this. "Too early on a Sunday" my mother explained. "Early to bed, early to rise, makes a person healthy wealthy and wise" said the minster. "Early to bed, early to rise, and your wife goes out with the other guys" responded my mother. There was nothing wrong at all with my parents' morals, but they found the self-righteous to be tiresome.

The question is broadly discussed: "How can we, or just can we, put the country back together?" . I am far from sure that we can. I thought the article might be helpful. Helpful or not, I liked it.

Irrelevant piece of data: Hillary Clinton went to Wellesley College. I grew up on Wellesley Avenue in St. Paul. I was a young adult before I learned that there is a college with the same name as my street. Stanford was a block over, and then Berkeley. If there is any spark of relevance, it is that we have a Wellesley graduate seeking votes from people who have never heard of the place. I believe it is called a culture clash.

[cherdano]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-October-17, 03:05, said:

Corbyn is certainly on the left and radical side of the Labour party, believing in unilateral disarmament, a high level of tax and spend, the abolition of the monarchy and so on.

A jobs guarantee for young people, renationalisation of energy companies, unilateral nuclear disarmament but keeping the submarines (presumably as work program for those who'd otherwise lose their jobs?), a 50% increase of the minimum wage.
(I am not arguing the merits of any of these, but these are positions to the left of pretty much any major politician I am aware of. I'll admit in advance that I know nothing about Danish politics.)

But aside from the policy stances, there is the approach to transactional politics. Corbyn is "standing by his principles" (as his supporters would say) or "refusing any compromise in order to secure working coalitions for his goals" (as his detractors would say). Between two left-wing politicians with similar policy views, the one who is standing by his/her principles/refusing to compromise will always seem more left-wing. [This, in my view, was also the core difference between Sanders and Clinton, not their fairly mild disagreements on policy issues.]

[barmar]

 kenberg, on 2016-October-17, 08:23, said:

For one thing, "non-college educated" is like "non-white". It says what someone is not rather than what someone is. Many years ago I had a neighbor whose racial make-up was part Black and part Native American. I am just guessing here, but my guess is that he would have accepted either classification, probably reluctantly, but he would have bristled at Non-White.

I think this form of classification is relevant because whites, especially white males, are a particularly privileged class in American society. While non-whites don't all share the same problems (e.g. immigration issues are important to Latinos, not so much to blacks), they share a number of issues common to minorities. They have a history of persecution, they're likely to live in underprivileged areas (which results in poor education and meagre job prospects), etc.

There are times when it's useful to make fine distinctions, but sometimes broad brushes are useful too. I'm sure you can find some reports that break down the "non-college educated" voters into more specific categories.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2016-October-17, 08:23, said:

"But I think it is fair to ask why a candidate who seems so repulsive in so many ways has such a significant base of support"

I think that it is not only fair, I think it is important. And I think the article was a useful contribution to understanding. I'll give a few thoughts of my own rather than try to channel the author.

For one thing, "non-college educated" is like "non-white". It says what someone is not rather than what someone is. Many years ago I had a neighbor whose racial make-up was part Black and part Native American. I am just guessing here, but my guess is that he would have accepted either classification, probably reluctantly, but he would have bristled at Non-White.

And then consider: The people in charge of these polls and surveys are, probably, college educated. The newspaper articles and opinion pieces are for the most part written by people with college degrees. So it comes out like this. We the Us have polled people. We have found that when we poll the Us, they agree with Us. These are the correct views. When we poll the non-Us, they hold other views, the wrong views. Let's assume the polls are accurate since, broadly, I imagine that they are. The optics are still a problem. I can well imagine a non-college educated person, married, job holding, raising kids, saying "Hey, I have an idea. Let's group people by whether or not they are self-supporting rather than by which degree they have." This is not some wild fantasy. I went to college because I wanted to, my parents, especially me father, saw little point in it. I was brought up to be self-supporting. That was important. College? Ok. Can't see why, but ok.

The author speaks of "the wings of moral superiority". Well, with Donald Trump nobody has to worry about any wings of moral superiority. I am not entirely joking here. A childhood memory: My parents were lax about church attendance and the minister was over berating them about this. "Too early on a Sunday" my mother explained. "Early to bed, early to rise, makes a person healthy wealthy and wise" said the minster. "Early to bed, early to rise, and your wife goes out with the other guys" responded my mother. There was nothing wrong at all with my parents' morals, but they found the self-righteous to be tiresome.

The question is broadly discussed: "How can we, or just can we, put the country back together?" . I am far from sure that we can. I thought the article might be helpful. Helpful or not, I liked it.

Irrelevant piece of data: Hillary Clinton went to Wellesley College. I grew up on Wellesley Avenue in St. Paul. I was a young adult before I learned that there is a college with the same name as my street. Stanford was a block over, and then Berkeley. If there is any spark of relevance, it is that we have a Wellesley graduate seeking votes from people who have never heard of the place. I believe it is called a culture clash.

I don't find his appeal all that confusing. It is the same appeal that Hitler and Mussolini brought to the table, a strongman persona preaching nationalism while painting outsiders as the cause of problems. The fact that this appeal cuts across economic classes and party affiliations shows to me that the cause must be an emotional rather than cognitive response. All strongmen tap into fear as the root for their appeal.

[kenberg]

 barmar, on 2016-October-17, 08:42, said:

I think this form of classification is relevant because whites, especially white males, are a particularly privileged class in American society. While non-whites don't all share the same problems (e.g. immigration issues are important to Latinos, not so much to blacks), they share a number of issues common to minorities. They have a history of persecution, they're likely to live in underprivileged areas (which results in poor education and meagre job prospects), etc.

There are times when it's useful to make fine distinctions, but sometimes broad brushes are useful too. I'm sure you can find some reports that break down the "non-college educated" voters into more specific categories.

All of this may be, I'll even say is, correct. But I was getting at the question of why a person as repulsive as Trump has support, and specifically why I think the article Helene cited has relevance. It's pretty clear that the left has ticked off a lot of people. I am suggesting that we not put it all down to ignorance and racism. Or more precisely, I am suggesting we look at those things that we can do something about. The neighbor I referred to, part African-American, part Native American, is indeed non-white. And we can easily agree that causes him problems in America. Nonetheless, this will not stop him from being aggravated at being classified as Non-White. I have mentioned, far more than once, I don't like being labelled at all. But if for some reason, good or bad, I need to be labelled I want the label to designate what I am rather than what I am not. Non-college educated covers a lot of ground. Did Bill Gates ever go back and finish? And I recall an early interview with Sergei Brin when Google was first catching on. The interviewer asked if he planned to finish his doctorate at Stanford. He said something like "I believe my mother is watching this so yes, I will be finishing my degree". But of course when the hard working factory guy hears the category, he feels he is being lumped in with the pothead sitting on the corner begging money. He doesn't like being lumped in with him. And then Trump comes along and says it will all be great.

I am looking for ways that we can all see ourselves as part of the same country. "Stronger Together" is a good slogan It would make an even better reality. It does not require that we all think the same. Time for some coffee.

[Winstonm]

One of the great faults IMO of President Obama has been a reluctance to talk directly to the American people while in office. I think this fault is not his alone, though, and I have noticed similar reluctance all the way through Bill Clinton's presidency. I am not sure why this was so.

I do think there was such a rush to expand globalization that there was not enough thought, effort, and talk about how this might affect workers here and how to prepare them. But our leaders were not talking about the downsides of the changes, but only the upsides. A more sophisticated and mature message from our leaders may well have produced a more mature response. We can hope, anyway.

[cherdano]

 kenberg, on 2016-October-17, 12:33, said:

All of this may be, I'll even say is, correct. But I was getting at the question of why a person as repulsive as Trump has support, and specifically why I think the article Helene cited has relevance. It's pretty clear that the left has ticked off a lot of people. I am suggesting that we not put it all down to ignorance and racism. Or more precisely, I am suggesting we look at those things that we can do something about.

Let me change my tack a little bit compared to posts I have made previously.

Whenever there is change, there is resistance to change. (There was a lot of resistance to introducing Obamacare; you can bet there'd be even more resistance to repealing and reverting to the status pre-Obamacare.)

What is the biggest change US society is currently undergoing? It's not twitter or video games, it's not more single parents, and it isn't too much construction in San Francisco. It is demographic change, it is economic changes due to globalisation, and it is economic change due to the continuing transition to a service-sector based economy.

There is no doubt that Trump is standing for resistance to all of these three changes - but, I would argue, mostly for resistant to demographic change.

Let me try to make a sympathetic case for resistance to demographic change. It is always nice to have common cultural background to refer to when you meet people. - Are you going to see your family for Thanksgiving? Are you done with your Christmas shopping? With whom are you going to see the Superbowl? Demographic change means more neighbours with less common cultural background. There is, undoubtedly, classism in US society; the left has made a big deal of fighting racism against African-Americans, or racism against Hispanics, or sexism, or discrimination against LGBTQ. The left rarely talks about bias against people who have grown up knowing few people with college degrees - even if they have the gifts (intellectual or otherwise) to succeed, they might not be taken as seriously as children of coastal elites who have learned to play the part. Who has the right to judge them for resentment against race-based affirmative action at their state's flagship university when there is no (or they don't hear about) class-based affirmative action? Meanwhile, this coalition of highly educated whites and minorities speak a different language, while Trump speaks their language. They write zingers for Clinton and criticise your own language just because some one could reasonably be offended. Voting is always very little about policy and a lot about voting for someone who thinks like you, and whom you'll thus trust to come to (in your view) reasonable opinions on whichever unforeseeable decisions he'll have to make in the future.

None of these feelings make a person evil, yet there isn't much language for it other than racism or racial resentment. It's a distrust against this new coalition of minorities and elites that is, in the arguably correct view of Trump voters, taking over the country.

I don't have a solution. But I don't think it helps to pretend it is something else - "economic anxiety" etc.

[Winstonm]

I called it fear but no one want to be called fearful. Maybe a better term is the phrase: angst of change.

[shyams]

BTW, Trump was right to want to "make America great again".

According to a UBS report, the total number of billionaires in the US barely rose by 1% last year. And worse still, their cumulative wealth actually dropped 6% {from $2.6 trillion down to $2.4 trillion}.

[blackshoe]

 Winstonm, on 2016-October-02, 16:24, said:

This country needs a two-party system

No. This country needs not to have a one party system. More choices than two would be fine.

[blackshoe]

Can I have the .2 trillion, please?

I was surprised, though I probably should not have been, to learn today that the Arizona Republic newpaper, which they say has not endorsed a Democratic Presidential candidate even once in its 126 year history - until now - has endorsed Hilary Clinton. Why? Because they don't believe Trump can do the job of President. The only other possibility, they mentioned, is Gary Johnson (the Libertarian candidate) but they declined to endorse him "because he has no chance". That may be, but it seems to me that if one believes that Gary Johnson will make a better President than Hilary Clinton, it is folly to endorse Clinton. Now, I don't know if they believe that or not, they didn't say. But "because he has no chance" is, it seems to me, the wrong approach. If it's true (and I'm sure it is), then endorsing him will make no difference. Endorsing Hilary, assuming they think Johnson would be a better prez, just seems like doing the expedient thing rather than the right thing.

BTW, both the editorial staff and the news staff (which latter had nothing to do with the endorsement) have apparently received some (non-specific, I think) death threats. Way to uphold the First Amendment, people!

[shyams]

I discovered from an article on FiveThirtyEight (link here) that a person called Evan McMullin has a better chance of being President than your libertarian candidate.

[onoway]

Watched a clip of Gary Johnson being interviewed..when asked if he had any thoughts about what to do about Alleppo his response was, ,." What's Alleppo?"

[Zelandakh]

The BBC did a programme last night on the election. In a script designed to highlight the unusual, the strangest and sadest thing I heard was the description of the electoral college system: "The Democrats start out with 240 and the Republicans 191, then we fight over the rest." Remembering that EC votes are a proxy for population, that means that only about 20% of votes are meaningful. Or put another way, 80% are disenfranchised regardless of who the candidates are. That figure only increases when you have only 2 candidates and neither is someone you really want to vote for.

Is this really a system to be proud of? If we had a one-party state where 1 in 5 of the population joined the party, that would be on the surface be just as democratic. And yet the commentary went by without anyone so much as batting an eyelid. That people accept so little democracy so easily is worrying.

The implications are also there for other countries with a FPTP system, such as the UK. While I doubt the disenfranchisement rate there reaches 80% it is assuredly higher than most people realise. And yet the disgruntled apparently prefer to register their protest by voting for a party like UKIP than giving themselves a greater voice through electoral reform. Sometimes you just have to wonder what your compatriots are thinking. I imagine many Americans have similar thoughts when they consider Trump supporters this year, particularly Muslims, Hispanics and women!

[cherdano]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-October-18, 06:55, said:

In a script designed to highlight the unusual, the strangest and sadest thing I heard was the description of the electoral college system: "The Democrats start out with 240 and the Republicans 191, then we fight over the rest."

Not defending the electoral college, but this is a vast overstatement.

http://projects.five...#electoral-vote

[cherdano]

 blackshoe, on 2016-October-17, 19:19, said:

I was surprised, though I probably should not have been, to learn today that the Arizona Republic newpaper, which they say has not endorsed a Democratic Presidential candidate even once in its 126 year history - until now - has endorsed Hilary Clinton. Why? Because they don't believe Trump can do the job of President.

That's a strange characterization of their endorsement, which says a lot of positive things about Clinton. Just google it if you don't believe me.

Quote

The only other possibility, they mentioned, is Gary Johnson (the Libertarian candidate) but they declined to endorse him "because he has no chance". That may be, but it seems to me that if one believes that Gary Johnson will make a better President than Hilary Clinton, it is folly to endorse Clinton. Now, I don't know if they believe that or not, they didn't say. But "because he has no chance" is, it seems to me, the wrong approach. If it's true (and I'm sure it is), then endorsing him will make no difference. Endorsing Hilary, assuming they think Johnson would be a better prez, just seems like doing the expedient thing rather than the right thing.

They never claimed that Johnson would make a better president. Here is the statement that you are referring to:
http://www.azcentral...ement/91238666/

They just said that they didn't even consider 3rd party candidates since this is an election between Clinton and Trump. Trust, you wouldn't have liked the result any better if they had bothered to look at Johnson.

[helene_t]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-October-18, 06:55, said:

The BBC did a programme last night on the election. In a script designed to highlight the unusual, the strangest and sadest thing I heard was the description of the electoral college system: "The Democrats start out with 240 and the Republicans 191, then we fight over the rest." Remembering that EC votes are a proxy for population, that means that only about 20% of votes are meaningful. Or put another way, 80% are disenfranchised regardless of who the candidates are.

In a way we are all disenfranchised in the sense that a single vote is extremely unlikely to make any difference unless we are talking about micro level elections such as school boards.

It may be so that just letting popular vote determine the election would not only be fairer but also give voters more of an illusion of having influence. But I don't think it is a big issue. AFAIC it has only happened a couple of times that the popular vote winner did not become president.

I suppose it is a relic from a time before nationwide parties. When we elect a president of the Dutch branch of Amnesty International, each local group delegate one or two people to the annual meeting, those are not elected on the basis of which of the candidates they support, rather they are chosen as someone who has the local group's trust in general.

I think it is much more of an issue that when more than two candidates are running, you can be elected by getting less than 50% of the popular vote. And, even more crucially, the system discourages parties from nominating more than one candidate.

[Zelandakh]

 cherdano, on 2016-October-18, 06:59, said:

Not defending the electoral college, but this is a vast overstatement.

http://projects.five...#electoral-vote

From the link, it seems that HC's numbers in all of the suggested 240 votes are above 85%, while DT's numbers are above 70% in all of the 191 except Alaska, where he is given at 65.3%. That Alaska might be in play is evidence that the election is pretty much already over. But if you are providing the link as evidence that only (at most) 20% of voters really matter then I think you have failed.

[kenberg]

 cherdano, on 2016-October-17, 14:50, said:

Let me change my tack a little bit compared to posts I have made previously.

Whenever there is change, there is resistance to change. (There was a lot of resistance to introducing Obamacare; you can bet there'd be even more resistance to repealing and reverting to the status pre-Obamacare.)

What is the biggest change US society is currently undergoing? It's not twitter or video games, it's not more single parents, and it isn't too much construction in San Francisco. It is demographic change, it is economic changes due to globalisation, and it is economic change due to the continuing transition to a service-sector based economy.

There is no doubt that Trump is standing for resistance to all of these three changes - but, I would argue, mostly for resistant to demographic change.

Let me try to make a sympathetic case for resistance to demographic. It is always nice to have common cultural background to refer to when you meet people. - Are you going to see your family for Thanksgiving? Are you done with your Christmas shopping? With whom are you going to see the Superbowl? Demographic change means more neighbours with less common cultural background. There is, undoubtedly, classism in US society; the left has made a big deal of fighting racism against African-Americans, or racism against Hispanics, or sexism, or discrimination against LGBTQ. The left rarely talks about bias against people who have grown up knowing few people with college degrees - even if they have the gifts (intellectual or otherwise) to succeed, they might not be taken as seriously as children of coastal elites who have learned to play the part. Who has the right to judge them for resentment against race-based affirmative action at their state's flagship university when there is no (or they don't hear about) class-based affirmative action? Meanwhile, this coalition of highly educated whites and minorities speak a different language, while Trump speaks their language. They write zingers for Clinton and criticise your own language just because some one could reasonably be offended. Voting is always very little about policy and a lot about voting for someone who thinks like you, and whom you'll thus trust to come to (in your view) reasonable opinions on whichever unforeseeable decisions he'll have to make in the future.

None of this feelings make a person evil, yet there isn't much language for it other than racism or racial resentment. It's a distrust against this new coalition of minorities and elites that is, in the arguably correct view of Trump voters, taking over the country.

I don't have a solution. But I don't think it helps to pretend it is something else - "economic anxiety" etc.

First things first: I agree with this.

Some details:
"It is always nice to have common cultural background to refer to when you meet people."
Some years ago I was at a wedding in Kentucky. When it was discovered that I was a Prof at the University of Maryland a giuy launched into a passionate discussion of the Terps and basketball (The mascot is a Terrapin, Terp for short). When my ignorance of who was who on the team became clear he left in stunned in disbelief.

"- Are you going to see your family for Thanksgiving? "
It's complicated, but yes, more or less. Thanksgiving aside, yes I like seeing the family. We will probably be going over to do some yard work at Becky's younger daughter's house today.

"Are you done with your Christmas shopping?"
I haven't started.

"With whom are you going to see the Superbowl?"
What's a Superbowl? Joking, joking. I usually watch it, but it's not a family event. Growing up, I listened to Joe Lewis fights on the radio, then I watched the Gillette Friday night fights, went to live fights, and I boxed some (mostly with friends) myself. As a young adult, I decided it was wrong to pay people to beat the crap out of each other and I stopped watching. I am well on my way to having the same objections to football. The skills are remarkable, I grant that.

But I agree that social elements are a large part of what's going on. I don't discount jobs and wages, that is part of it, but there is no getting around the social, cultural, and, definitely, the racial aspects.
On this point, it seems to me that neighborhoods have become more "mono" than they were fifty years ago. Mono what, I am not sure. But less diverse, where I am using diverse to mean diverse, rather than its often coded meaning of racially mixed. My family had a Chevrolet. I delivered papers to a guy who had an Alfa Romeo, twelve cylinders I believe. And a couple of other similar cars. I consider that diverse. In my current neighborhood, the diversity is that I drive a sedan instead of an SUV. We have Black neighbors. We have no neighbor with an Alfa Romeo.

Some people are beyond the pale. Deplorable if you like. We can't do anything about them except, I trust, outvote them But the minds of others are not always as set as is sometimes imagined. Maybe their minds will change, and, if not, maybe we can still work together on points of agreement. I think we had all better figure out how.

[Winstonm]

 billw55, on 2016-October-17, 06:23, said:

I think you might be making an error here. You don't believe in supply side economics.

I neither believe nor disbelieve supply side economics. History does not support the claims of supply side so it appears to be invalid, at least as it is applied to the modern world. For example:

Quote

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback said Monday that he's not ruling out a tax increase next year to keep the state's budget balanced, even though he believes it would be harmful to raise taxes with agriculture in a slump

.

The same thing happened when Reagan cut taxes in the early 80's. The debt skyrocketed, forcing a raise in taxes from Reagan. Perhaps Say's law was valid at its time - it may be that fractional reserve banking has discounted the necessity for great amounts of savings. I don't know. I do know that in our modern era supply side economics has not produced positive data to support itself.

I do not claim expertise and I am open to being shown that supply side does work.