Have you read this study? https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi...1.1813748002.1565965160-1343362672.1565965160 Link to full study pdf:https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjACegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw1a5oXAZ38_QP-nwivfUfFd It honestly reflects my experience when I was deeply imbedded in a right wing bubble for multiple years hence why I honestly don't buy the economic anxiety argument.
I honestly do not know. I do not think so. I do want to make it clear though that sexism and racism certainly play a large part in all of this..... however I think it is dangerous to simply paint his appeal only as racism and sexism. If there is a certain level of understanding of why Trump has appeal, the democrats will be in a better position to win in 2020. What is the articles ultimate conclusion?
The conclusion they made in the paper: Pdf of full study: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw1a5oXAZ38_QP-nwivfUfFd&cshid=1565965716712 "In this paper, we use data from a national survey conducted during the final week of October to adjudicate between these two popular explanations. Using unique measures of attitudes on racism and sexism, coupled with a question designed to tap into dissatisfaction with personal economic conditions, we are able to determine to what extent each of these explanations helped to explain vote choices in 2016 and, ultimately, whether either of these explanations can explain the education gap in vote choice among whites. We find that while economic dissatisfaction was an important part of the story, racism and sexism were much more impactful in predicting support for Trump among white voters and more specifically both sexism and racism explain close to two-thirds of the educational gap among white voters in the 2016 presidential vote." So you are correct in that economic anxiety has some role but the race and sexism issues were more influential according to their data.
I don't disagree with that conclusion at all, and I do believe that in some ways they bleed into each other and cannot even be completely separated.
Trump supporters are going to be in total shock in a couple of decades, when computers and AI are dominating everything.
True, I am not even sure it will take many decades, we could see many dramatic changes in around a decade or three presidential elections.
You're posting that to the wrong person, @Nook. I'm keenly aware of why many who fit your description voted for trump. In fact, on a certain level, I have more respect for a significant number of them for what they did in 2016 than I do for the educated "20 somethings" who stayed at home, voted Green or libertarian, sat the election out, in other words, because they were obsessed with "punishing the Democratic Party for not being fair to Bernie!" These so-called educated people couldn't see past Ms Clinton being a vastly better alternative because they were in a snit. They couldn't bring themselves to understand the obvious, that Ms Clinton was tremendously preferable to donald trump sitting in the White House, and for a host of reasons, the most salient being appointing Supreme Court and federal district court judges to lifetime appointments. That act of juvenile behavior gave us two very right wing, conservative judges on the nation's highest court, and dozens of federal judges that have been approved by McConnell's assembly line in the Senate. This has a generational impact, but hey - they "stood up" for Bernie. In such a narrow election, it made all the difference. No, what I don't understand today, Nook, is how those people you describe can possibly support trump now. The fellow has given more than ample reason for the same people to vote against him in 2020, and I think many will. He lied to them about a host of things. He's done to them, the rest of us, and to the country tremendous damage, damage I've posted about here many times, as have many others. My personal opinion is that those here who are persistently posting their support for trump, making jokes about the criticism of trump, starting threads in support of trump and then running away from the evidence that they are wrong - they are the outliers. I don't think they represent a significant number of those you presented in your post. That's not to say that trump won't get his "come hell or high water, I don't give a damn about the truth because it's "fake news!" people. His 40%, as shocking as that number is to me, but he's going to lose a lot of them. In my opinion.
