This was based on reverse reasoning: overt racists flocked to Trump. They are the experts on who is a racist.
After the votes were in, there were plenty of attempts to show that racism was not the main driver. among the more interesting were comparisons of counties that voted for Obama twice and Trump.
Now The Washington Post has publicized a social science approach using a long secular series of interview data.
Finally, the statistical tool of regression can tease apart which had more influence on the 2016 vote: authoritarianism or symbolic racism, after controlling for education, race, ideology, and age. Moving from the 50th to the 75th percentile in the authoritarian scale made someone about 3 percent more likely to vote for Trump. The same jump on the SRS scale made someone 20 percent more likely to vote for Trump.So political scientist Thomas Wood concludes: "Racial attitudes made a bigger difference in electing Trump than authoritarianism."
Sounds right to me.
I am less impressed by the finding that, for the second time since the interviews began in 1948, rich Republicans were less supportive of their party's candidate. The reason is that I doubt whether the sample (1,400) included any people that Trump would class as rich.
In this respect, four years ago, I heard assertions that Romney, with only a few hundred million, was not regarded as au fait among the billionairate. Who was the only other Republican candidate not to get his party's wealthy on board?
Romney.
Truly, Fitzgerald was right.
Ahhh, Harry, continuing your never ending search for racists under every bed? Yes, yes, we're all racist, congrats, you found us out. You can stop searching now.
ReplyDeleteBut really, "symbolic racism"? Yes, you can define anything you want to be anything you want. But I can't take it seriously. If that's racism, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.
Harry,
ReplyDeleteOK, if we are to see racism as a spectrum, I can believe there is a correlation between someone presenting higher levels of it and voting for trump.
But it is still a far stretch to argue it was the main driver. Even more so if you consider he was running against a pretty white adversary too.
'he was running against a pretty white adversary too.'
ReplyDeleteYes, but the Democratic platform was inclusive and the Republican rhetoric was exclusive.
Bret, the expectations of the racist voters was not for symbols but for actual advantages. At Great Guys, you have the example of the commenter who voted for Trump and deeply resents the appointment of non-whites to top jobs.
I'd say the racists got a juicy bone in Sessions. We'll see if that's all
Perhaps it is time to look at the source.
ReplyDeleteThe comment underlying the first group of graphs: "2016 was plainly an anomaly. While the wealthy are usually most likely to vote for the Republican, they didn’t this time; and while the poor are usually less likely to vote for the Republican, they were unusually supportive of Trump. And the degree to which the wealthy disdained the 2016 Republican candidate was without recent historical precedent."
The difference between 2012 and 2016 is within statistical margin of error, except for the high income data point. Which had -- at most -- 100 responses.
Aside from that statistical legerdemain -- the author considers 1200 representative respondents statistically representative, an N on the lowish side, yet is happy to consider 100 within a set OK -- why is 2016 v 2012 alarming, but 2008 v. 2004 not worth mentioning?
(This is starting to become deja vu all over again.
The crap continues:
The idea is that voters anxious about change and disorder will say it’s best to encourage children to follow rules. For instance, respondents are asked whether it’s better when children are considerate (likely more liberal) or well-behaved (likely more authoritarian), or whether they should be self-reliant (likely more liberal) or obedient (likely more authoritarian).
Is it possible to raise children who follow the rules, and are considerate, and well behaved, and self reliant? None are mutually exclusive. So how the hell does this idiot assign them to one group or another?
The charge of racism, based upon reference to a myopic Puffington Host article -- whose judgments are as reliable as yours -- is no help. As if that wasn't bad enough, the results are just as likely to measure correlation with leftist shibboleths.
Also, as an exercise left to the reader, try and make sense out of the 2nd and 4th graphs under "Relationship between Symbolic Racism Indicators and the Presidential Vote, 1988-2016".
You are a sucker.
Yes, but the Democratic platform was inclusive and the Republican rhetoric was exclusive.
Who ran the campaign based on urogenital plumbing? Which party appeals so exclusively to identity politics?
BTW, Harry, your witless endorsement of that silly article reminds me of this.
ReplyDeleteThe progressive world view is, to me, anyway, an unending mystery. Self styled as the reality based community, progressives display a childlike faith in, and blindness to, their own bigotries, combined with a shameless facility for making stuff up. And when it comes to vacuous, rote, demonization, they certainly have a case to answer. It's almost, or perhaps completely, as if the only things left in their intellectual armoire are tar brushes and slime buckets.
I read the comments on the articles the NYT allow comments on, and those the WSJ allows. The NYT is very selective about which articles it allows comments, and has a very heavy-handed moderating policy. The WSJ allows comments on everything, and doesn't moderate anything.
The NYT comments are astonishingly nasty. WSJ comments just as astonishingly not.
Harry would fit in just fine with the NYT, and be an outlier at the WSJ.
Interesting.
More evidence of: blinkered progs.
ReplyDelete(Harry, behold the power of links.)
1,200 is about 80% of the samples of most national political polls.
ReplyDeleteThe value of this sample is its longitudinal context.
I don't believe much in polling and didn't insist on this one. But the blips were interesting.
I read NYT comments, too, and do not find them nasty, not compared to the comments on Coulter's blog, for example.
Of course you don't find the NYT comments nasty, as you hate people who disagree with you every bit as much as NYT commenters do: fish aren't aware of water.
ReplyDelete1,200 is about 80% of the samples of most national political polls.
Indeed, it is. That you make this comment clearly shows you don't know square root of heck all about statistics.
1,200 is 80% a representative sample for a population sharing characteristics relevant to the question.
The question here is income quintile v. attitudes. To have a representative sample, 100 people in the highest quintile isn't even close. In fact, none of the quintile samples are close.
More fool you.
Depends how confident you want your assessment to be, which may depend on such parameters as money.
ReplyDeleteI'm not insisting on the results and neither was the political scientist.
However, it tends to support unquantified observations, such as the one I noted, which is, after all, diagnostic
However, it tends to support unquantified observations, such as the one I noted, which is, after all, diagnostic
ReplyDeleteThat is a an extremely long winded way of saying "confirmation bias".
Well, no, it isn't. Had the results come out the other way, that would have called into doubt the significance of the embrace of Trump by the racists.
ReplyDeleteWell, no, it isn't. Had the results come out the other way, that would have called into doubt the significance of the embrace of Trump by the racists.
ReplyDeleteHarry, this can't be that hard: the "results" are a comedy of statistic abuse, and the criteria are self-serving rubbish. Disagreeing with prog policy does not make one a racist.
As I noted above:
Is it possible to raise children who follow the rules, and are considerate, and well behaved, and self reliant? None are mutually exclusive. So how the hell does this idiot assign them to one group or another?
If you can't find some way for all of these to be mutually exclusive, then you are either a complete sucker, or impenetrably stupid. Or just love having your ideological delusions fluffed.
BTW, this post further enhances your perfect track record: you are utterly incapable of using "racist" correctly.
Yet you fling it about like a monkey flings poo.
Poor crickets.
ReplyDelete