Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

That is hard to square with the actual data, which is that Biden won people with income of less than $100K by double digits, while Trump won people with income of more than that by double digits.

Take voters who make less than $50K. Biden won them 55-44. Assume, generously, that a fifth of those voters aren't white, and that every single of one of those voters went for Biden. Take away a fifth of Biden's 55%, and you end up with a tie. That's not rabid Trump people.

It's not about income. It's about older (mostly white) people and their fear.

LessinLiverpool

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

It's not about income. It's about older (mostly white) people and their fear.

LessinLiverpool

I’ve heard them described as Upper Precariat. They are in fact economically downtrodden. One job loss or layoff away from disaster.

Of course, a lot of people are in that situation. There’s a story on Reuters right now about how 30% of people making $200k are living paycheck to paycheck.

But I think the Trump households are more in the $50k to $120k range. One job loss and junior doesn’t have any college funds. I think a lot of them are borrowed to the tits and cash flow is essential.

They aren’t the desperate poor, but they’re hanging on by their nails. My guess is there’s a lotta fungible middle managers and professionals in MAGA nation.

You can see a version of their fate play out in law firm layoffs. You see these lawyers who lose a job and just vanish. They go from decently paid to long term unemployed overnight. No book, no value. What’s a middle aged middle manager got to offer the job market? Not much.

MAGAland bought a bullshit story about the American Dream early in their careers, but it hasn’t been reading the papers over the past 30 years. Unless you were utterly clueless and terrifically uninformed, you could see all of this precariousness coming. Shit, Ross Perot warned MAGAland of the “great sucking sound” back in 1992.

So yeah, they’re downtrodden. They’re scared, and I don’t think they’ve the skills to sell or the ability to pivot to other careers as private equity buys their employers, rolls them up, and downsizes them.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

It's not about income. It's about older (mostly white) people and their fear.

LessinLiverpool

Agree that it's about other things, but those things correlate with income.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I’ve heard them described as Upper Precariat. They are in fact economically downtrodden. One job loss or layoff away from disaster.

Of course, a lot of people are in that situation. There’s a story on Reuters right now about how 30% of people making $200k are living paycheck to paycheck.

But I think the Trump households are more in the $50k to $120k range. One job loss and junior doesn’t have any college funds. I think a lot of them are borrowed to the tits and cash flow is essential.

They aren’t the desperate poor, but they’re hanging on by their nails. My guess is there’s a lotta fungible middle managers and professionals in MAGA nation.

You can see a version of their fate play out in law firm layoffs. You see these lawyers who lose a job and just vanish. They go from decently paid to long term unemployed overnight. No book, no value. What’s a middle aged middle manager got to offer the job market? Not much.

MAGAland bought a bullshit story about the American Dream early in their careers, but it hasn’t been reading the papers over the past 30 years. Unless you were utterly clueless and terrifically uninformed, you could see all of this precariousness coming. Shit, Ross Perot warned MAGAland of the “great sucking sound” back in 1992.

So yeah, they’re downtrodden. They’re scared, and I don’t think they’ve the skills to sell or the ability to pivot to other careers as private equity buys their employers, rolls them up, and downsizes them.

It's lovely description of how people with more money are in fact the downtrodden, but if, by your take, Trump voters are downtrodden, then Biden voters are even more downtrodden, and the word becomes meaningless.

You have exquisite sensitivity for the economic pain of the more affluent people who support Trump, but ignore the economic pain of the less affluent people who support Biden.

Downtrodden my ass.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's lovely description of how people with more money are in fact the downtrodden, but if, by your take, Trump voters are downtrodden, then Biden voters are even more downtrodden, and the word becomes meaningless.

You have exquisite sensitivity for the economic pain of the more affluent people who support Trump, but ignore the economic pain of the less affluent people who support Biden.

Downtrodden my ass.

Sensitivity? I just described them as clueless and credulous.

I also noted that they are not the most downtrodden in borrowing the descriptive “Upper Precariat.”

If you’re in constant fear of being downsized, you’re in a bad place. Pick an adjective.

You just want to call them all racists. I actually agree many of them are. But as I noted earlier, the interplay between economic anxiety and racist attitudes is complex. You’d rather see it bluntly, call them all racists and being done with it. This of course allows you to avoid the discussion of how neoliberalism is one of the biggest causes of Trumpism.

Your version of capitalism is, “Fuck the middle; charity for the bottom.” That’s fine. I don’t really give a fuck because I don’t think the situation is solvable. But at least I own that corner. You want to be an apologist for monopolies and neoliberal polices that fuck the poor and the middle and absolve yourself of being selfish by saying “I’m in favor of greater redistribution…”. That’s crumbs for the desperate. And your bullshit in that regard is the definition of transparent.

You’re as selfish as any of the rest of us, including me.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Agree that it's about other things, but those things correlate with income.

So you're saying as rich as these guys are money mangers, and for that matter, since they're old, estate lawyers should be hanging around the courthouse?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

It's not about income. It's about older (mostly white) people and their fear.

LessinLiverpool

Generally I agree with this, even while acknowledging that Ty is right on the numbers.

If you look at things like Trump's inroads in the Hispanic community, which still votes Democratic on the whole but has been giving Rs an increasing share in key places, you will see a variety of historical fears, ranging from the anti-communism of Cubans to worries about immigration from newer groups of immigrants to concerns about women getting uppity, and you'll see a whole lot of Catholicism, too. Sure, the inroads are first and foremost among the most established and well to do, but they don't stop there.

That said, for a discussion about statistical stuff like what income brackets support Trumpists, there is a real lack of actual stats in the discussion itself (though Ty links to some of it).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Generally I agree with this, even while acknowledging that Ty is right on the numbers.

If you look at things like Trump's inroads in the Hispanic community, which still votes Democratic on the whole but has been giving Rs an increasing share in key places, you will see a variety of historical fears, ranging from the anti-communism of Cubans to worries about immigration from newer groups of immigrants to concerns about women getting uppity, and you'll see a whole lot of Catholicism, too. Sure, the inroads are first and foremost among the most established and well to do, but they don't stop there.

That said, for a discussion about statistical stuff like what income brackets support Trumpists, there is a real lack of actual stats in the discussion itself (though Ty links to some of it).

I do not think broad datasets can draw an appropriate picture, or even operate as a poor heuristic to generalize about 70 million people.

But since Ty insists, consider this. If the best gauge of racist sentiment on this list is immigration, which is true, it still ranks 14 percent below the economy. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics...2016-election/

Interestingly, if one looks up economic anxiety and Trump voters, the same limited blunt data are cited in almost every article. The pieces, many of which plagiarize from or link each other, are more editorial than objective. The starting line is an almost insistent and scolding, or gleeful, assertion that it was all racism or status concerns. Even though the most generous assessment of the data suggests it’s a mixed bag of many causes, including economic anxiety and racism.

Me thinks “journalism” may be institutionally/intellectually captured by the Chicago School, today known as Neoliberalism. To test this theory, suggest to a Neoliberal that racism is a very real and acute problem, but is also being used to divert attention from economic causes of dysfunction and inequality in society. You’ll get a very defensive response.

Idk why Neoliberals don’t like being called out for what they are - a mix of limousine liberal, libertarian bro, Milton Friedman disciple, and superficial bleeding heart.

All men are hypocrites. Call me a Neoliberal. I’ve been called worse.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I do not think broad datasets can draw an appropriate picture, or even operate as a poor heuristic to generalize about 70 million people.

But since Ty insists, consider this. If the best gauge of racist sentiment on this list is immigration, which is true, it still ranks 14 percent below the economy. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics...2016-election/

Interestingly, if one looks up economic anxiety and Trump voters, the same limited blunt data are cited in almost every article. The pieces, many of which plagiarize from or link each other, are more editorial than objective. The starting line is an almost insistent and scolding, or gleeful, assertion that it was all racism or status concerns. Even though the most generous assessment of the data suggests it’s a mixed bag of many causes, including economic anxiety and racism.

Me thinks “journalism” may be institutionally/intellectually captured by the Chicago School, today known as Neoliberalism. To test this theory, suggest to a Neoliberal that racism is a very real and acute problem, but is also being used to divert attention from economic causes of dysfunction and inequality in society. You’ll get a very defensive response.

Idk why Neoliberals don’t like being called out for what they are - a mix of limousine liberal, libertarian bro, Milton Friedman disciple, and superficial bleeding heart.

All men are hypocrites. Call me a Neoliberal. I’ve been called worse.

Wow, you don't use stats much, do you? I'm going to ignore all the strange data usage and focus on the substantive issue here.

One of the funny uses of a lot of data on economic anxiety is that people tend to use self-reported "concerns", as in the Pew survey, as a way of conflating worries about inflation and worries about unemployment, treating a bank CEO's worries about worker shortages as equivalent to his employee's concerns about getting laid off. The economy is a huge category that encompasses many often conflicting concerns, and so will always be on and near the top of the list. Immigration is a much narrower policy, and the fact that there is so much concern over a narrow policy set is an indication of a pretty unusual state of affairs.

But that particular survey doesn't hit all sorts of other issues. There is no question designed to ferret out a rise in white supremacy, an increase in anti-semitism, or any of the other concerns that I see motivating a lot of Republicans these days. You need a different data set to look at those issues. Given the ability of a narrow set of the electorate, to control a political party because of the intensity and focus of their concerns, and the general lack of motivation of most of the electorate, the presence of even 10% of the population, concentrating in more conservative states, signing up for white supremacism has a huge impact on the country.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Wow, you don't use stats much, do you? I'm going to ignore all the strange data usage and focus on the substantive issue here.

One of the funny uses of a lot of data on economic anxiety is that people tend to use self-reported "concerns", as in the Pew survey, as a way of conflating worries about inflation and worries about unemployment, treating a bank CEO's worries about worker shortages as equivalent to his employee's concerns about getting laid off. The economy is a huge category that encompasses many often conflicting concerns, and so will always be on and near the top of the list. Immigration is a much narrower policy, and the fact that there is so much concern over a narrow policy set is an indication of a pretty unusual state of affairs.

But that particular survey doesn't hit all sorts of other issues. There is no question designed to ferret out a rise in white supremacy, an increase in anti-semitism, or any of the other concerns that I see motivating a lot of Republicans these days. You need a different data set to look at those issues. Given the ability of a narrow set of the electorate, to control a political party because of the intensity and focus of their concerns, and the general lack of motivation of most of the electorate, the presence of even 10% of the population, concentrating in more conservative states, signing up for white supremacism has a huge impact on the country.

Actually, we share a similar view of stats. When the income numbers are self-reported, do you assume those any more accurate than any other self-reported number?

Try asking 100 everymen to give a definition of gross vs. net income.

The "economic anxiety" explanation of Trump voters was based on 2016 data. So you can eliminate the suggestion that concerns about inflation played a part.

Immigration is also a huge and multifaceted issue. And if you look at the poll cited, it's voters in general, not Rs or Ds. This means it includes concerns about immigration held by those who favor more of it, or are concerned about R attempts to curtail it. It's not an unusually high number of people who are anti-immigration, as you suggest.

There is no question to ferret out bigotry, I totally agree. And there never will be one. And this is probably the most significant hole in Ty's argument. It is necessarily based on a set of assumptions. Most notably, the unsupported and unsupportable assumption that because Trump voters aren't uniquely destitute, they must be racist. That doesn't even qualify as facile.

How does one create the binary that: If not (a) Economy; then, (b) Racism.? I could insert almost any issue into (b) and it would hold some level of credibility.

The opinions dressed as scholarship supporting the opinions of Vox and WaPo on this issue are not statistically sound. As Ty even admits, at best they show a correlation between higher incomes and Trump voters. You and I couldn't count the angles from which extrapolation from that to the suggestion that racism or "lack of status" was the primary driver - a suggestion I might add was stridently made by certain media outfits with a pronounced lean (both supporting progressive and neoliberal positions) - can be dismantled.

I don't know whether I've a strong or poor facility with stats, but I know one needn't know a whole lot to knock the plankings out of this dumb argument that "it's all racism," or "economic anxiety driving Trump voters is myth."

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Actually, we share a similar view of stats. When the income numbers are self-reported, do you assume those any more accurate than any other self-reported number?

Try asking 100 everymen to give a definition of gross vs. net income.

The "economic anxiety" explanation of Trump voters was based on 2016 data. So you can eliminate the suggestion that concerns about inflation played a part.

Immigration is also a huge and multifaceted issue. And if you look at the poll cited, it's voters in general, not Rs or Ds. This means it includes concerns about immigration held by those who favor more of it, or are concerned about R attempts to curtail it. It's not an unusually high number of people who are anti-immigration, as you suggest.

There is no question to ferret out bigotry, I totally agree. And there never will be one. And this is probably the most significant hole in Ty's argument. It is necessarily based on a set of assumptions. Most notably, the unsupported and unsupportable assumption that because Trump voters aren't uniquely destitute, they must be racist. That doesn't even qualify as facile.

How does one create the binary that: If not (a) Economy; then, (b) Racism.? I could insert almost any issue into (b) and it would hold some level of credibility.

The opinions dressed as scholarship supporting the opinions of Vox and WaPo on this issue are not statistically sound. As Ty even admits, at best they show a correlation between higher incomes and Trump voters. You and I couldn't count the angles from which extrapolation from that to the suggestion that racism or "lack of status" was the primary driver - a suggestion I might add was stridently made by certain media outfits with a pronounced lean (both supporting progressive and neoliberal positions) - can be dismantled.

I don't know whether I've a strong or poor facility with stats, but I know one needn't know a whole lot to knock the plankings out of this dumb argument that "it's all racism," or "economic anxiety driving Trump voters is myth."

If you spend a little time on google, you'll find plenty of surveys identifying increasing white supremacist views. But you've got plenty of other data points, from readership and/or viewership of things like the Daily Stormer, Breitbart, Tucker Carlson, to the votes for openly supremacist candidates to the increasing number of racially motivated or anti-semitic incidents.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

If you spend a little time on google, you'll find plenty of surveys identifying increasing white supremacist views. But you've got plenty of other data points, from readership and/or viewership of things like the Daily Stormer, Breitbart, Tucker Carlson, to the votes for openly supremacist candidates to the increasing number of racially motivated or anti-semitic incidents.

Sure. But how do you conclude those are Trump voters?

You're looking at two sets of data, (a) Trump voters; and, (b) Racists/Xenophobes expressing such views online or watching/reading things that champion such views.

You can't credibly argue that because there was an uptick in racist/xenophobic activity, all or even a majority of people involved in it were Trump voters. You can assume it, but it's a very weak assumption. The linking stats just aren't present, and they never will be. That assumption also rests on a conclusion that online trolls and people with deviant views predominantly vote, rather than stay in their basements.*

But putting all of that aside, the selection of racism/xenophobia as the sole alternative to economic anxiety makes no sense. The framing is utterly arbitrary.

A whole lot of Trump voters are tax voters. They're not economically insecure. So "greedy" is one huge category overlooked by the racism vs. anxiety framework. A lot of Trump voters work in fossil fuel industries. Concern about environmental regulation that could hit their bottom line is another huge alternative to racism as a reason people voted for Trump. Military people tend to vote R all the time. There's another alternative group. Along those same lines, you have small to mid sized business owners. You have the people who just vote R across the board every year because that's how they've always done it. You have the pro-lifers. The Evangelicals, the Mormons. The list of possible reasons to vote Trump other than economic anxiety could go on for paragraphs.

And yet the conversation about this is always a choice between economic concerns and racism.

Who does this framing serve? (That's rhetorical.)

Why is this framing a one-or-the-other proposition? If you're on the left, or a neoliberal seeking to avoid discussion of economic causes that screw the poor, minorities, and the middle, but make you money, you want to push the narrative that it's racism. If you're on the right, you want to push the narrative that it's all about the hollowing out of the middle class. Both make your side appear to be victimized and noble.

But it's really grey, and we don't know the mindset of the average Trump voter. We never will. Surely, racism and economic anxiety are both drivers for many of his voters. But what percentage? Unknown, unknowable, and never to be credibly stated.

But that won't stop us, the media, and the people who slant stats to tease out the conclusion they desire from attempting to prove the makeup of Trump voters, but instead proving HL Mencken correct: "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

* ETA: Bots, also. How many of the armies of online racists are actually Russian, NK, and Chinese bots? And also, Carlson's audience is what? A few million? Cable news is shrinking at astonishing speed. If you take all of the viewers of the big cable news networks together, you still have a tiny fraction of the electorate. If you take Fox's share and stipulate they're all driven by racism and all voted for Trump, you still only have a small fraction of the 70 million he got in 2016.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Sure. But how do you conclude those are Trump voters?

You're looking at two sets of data, (a) Trump voters; and, (b) Racists/Xenophobes expressing such views online or watching/reading things that champion such views.

You can't credibly argue that because there was an uptick in racist/xenophobic activity, all or even a majority of people involved in it were Trump voters. You can assume it, but it's a very weak assumption. The linking stats just aren't present, and they never will be. That assumption also rests on a conclusion that online trolls and people with deviant views predominantly vote, rather than stay in their basements.

But putting all of that aside, the selection of racism/xenophobia as the sole alternative to economic anxiety makes no sense. The framing is utterly arbitrary.

A whole lot of Trump voters are tax voters. They're not economically insecure. So "greedy" is one huge category overlooked by the racism vs. anxiety framework. A lot of Trump voters work in fossil fuel industries. Concern about environmental regulation that could hit their bottom line is another huge alternative to racism as a reason people voted for Trump. Military people tend to vote R all the time. There's another alternative group. Along those same lines, you have small to mid sized business owners. You have the people who just vote R across the board every year because that's how they've always done it. You have the pro-lifers. The Evangelicals, the Mormons. The list of possible reasons to vote Trump other than economic anxiety could go on for paragraphs.

And yet the conversation about this is always a choice between economic concerns and racism.

Who does this framing serve? (That's rhetorical.)

Why is this framing a one-or-the-other proposition? If you're on the left, or a neoliberal seeking to avoid discussion of economic causes that screw the poor, minorities, and the middle, but make you money, you want to push the narrative that it's racism. If you're on the right, you want to push the narrative that it's all about the hollowing out of the middle class. Both make your side appear to be victimized and noble.

But it's really grey, and we don't know the mindset of the average Trump voter. We never will. Surely, racism and economic anxiety are both drivers for many of his voters. But what percentage? Unknown, unknowable, and never to be credibly stated.

But that won't stop us, the media, and the people who slant stats to tease out the conclusion they desire from attempting to prove the makeup of Trump voters, but instead proving HL Mencken correct: "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

Oh come on.

The White Supremacists range from Tucker Carlson to Proud Boys to Breitbart to the Highland Park Shooter to elected like Gohmert, Abbott, and DeSantis. They are all Republican (Trump) voters and electeds.

Sure, historically there were plenty of dems who went in for this stuff, but it's really been twenty years since the last of those types died off or went over the Republicans.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Oh come on.

The White Supremacists range from Tucker Carlson to Proud Boys to Breitbart to the Highland Park Shooter to elected like Gohmert, Abbott, and DeSantis. They are all Republican (Trump) voters and electeds.

Sure, historically there were plenty of dems who went in for this stuff, but it's really been twenty years since the last of those types died off or went over the Republicans.

If those asshats vote, yes, they vote Trump. But how many of those clowns are out there? A few million wingnuts? Maybe ten? (And how many are barred felons?)

I don't see any responsible statistical basis for the assertion Trump was overwhelmingly elected by racists.

Your argument that racists provided the little bit needed to win is true. Trump needed every group he that voted for him to win in 2016 as his margin was so thin. But that would mean that if he somehow lost, say, the military vote, or the tax voters, he would not have won. Every group he had was essential. Racists were one slice of a big, very strange pizza.

I'd totally agree with articles that said, "But for the Racists, No Trump." I think the math to support that is out there (with the caveat I just noted).

OTOH, articles saying, "It's Not the Economic Anxiety; It's the Racism," are stretching the point. It's both, among a lot of other shit. Much of it bizarre.

ETA: And the sexists! Fuck, how did I forget the sexists. Shit, that's a huge part of Trump's vote. In fact, how did racism become the favored narrative explaining Trump's win when clearly, however much of that was involved, sexism was a far larger - possibly by multiples - component? I guess people assume all sexists are racists? That's not true by a long shot. Equally loathsome crowds, but the Venn there looks far more like a sideways 8 than a 0.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If those asshats vote, yes, they vote Trump. But how many of those clowns are out there? A few million wingnuts? Maybe ten? (And how many are barred felons?)

I don't see any responsible statistical basis for the assertion Trump was overwhelmingly elected by racists.

Your argument that racists provided the little bit needed to win is true. Trump needed every group he that voted for him to win in 2016 as his margin was so thin. But that would mean that if he somehow lost, say, the military vote, or the tax voters, he would not have won. Every group he had was essential. Racists were one slice of a big, very strange pizza.

I'd totally agree with articles that said, "But for the Racists, No Trump." I think the math to support that is out there (with the caveat I just noted).

OTOH, articles saying, "It's Not the Economic Anxiety; It's the Racism," are stretching the point. It's both, among a lot of other shit. Much of it bizarre.

ETA: And the sexists! Fuck, how did I forget the sexists. Shit, that's a huge part of Trump's vote. In fact, how did racism become the favored narrative explaining Trump's win when clearly, however much of that was involved, sexism was a far larger - possibly by multiples - component? I guess people assume all sexists are racists? That's not true by a long shot. Equally loathsome crowds, but the Venn there looks far more like a sideways 8 than a 0.

What's happening is those folks are becoming perhaps the most important part of the Republican party because they are highly motivated and well financed; remember, Republican primaries in 2020, a high-turnout year, totaled about 18 million voters. Now revisit the "maybe 10 million" number you had - that's a number that, with high motivation, can dominate that process.

Today, I suspect you can count on one hand the Republicans who can be elected without enthusiastic backing from that constituency. Certainly here in Massachusetts, they chased an otherwise popular Republican governor from oiffice.