The roots of Trump support

It seems to be living near failure, not necessarily experiencing it yourself:

Yet a major new analysis from Gallup, based on 87,000 interviews the polling company conducted over the past year, suggests this narrative is not complete. According to this new analysis, those who view Trump favorably have not been disproportionately affected by foreign trade or immigration, compared to people with unfavorable views of the Republican presidential nominee. The results suggest that his supporters, on average, do not have lower incomes than other Americans, nor are they more likely to be unemployed.

Yet while Trump’s supporters might be comparatively well off themselves, they come from places where their neighbors endure other forms of hardship. In their communities, white residents are dying younger, and it is harder for young people who grow up poor to get ahead.

The Gallup analysis is the most comprehensive statistical profile of Trump’s supporters so far. Jonathan Rothwell, the economist at Gallup who conducted the analysis, sorted the respondents by their Zip code and then compared those findings with a host of other data from a variety of sources.

That is from Max Ehrenfreund and Jeff Guo at the always-excellent Wonkblog.  And there is this:

White households tend be more affluent than other households, and Trump’s supporters are overwhelmingly white. The same is true of Republicans in general. Yet when Rothwell focused only on white Republicans, he also found that demographically similar respondents who were more affluent viewed Trump more favorably.

These results suggest that personal finances cannot account alone for Trump’s appeal. His popularity with less educated men is probably due to some other trait that these supporters share.

Rothwell’s results also very much downplay the roles of trade and China, compared to some other estimates.  Here is a link to Rothwell summarizing some of these results, I am not sure if there is a link to the full study proper.


"His popularity with less educated men is probably due to some other trait that these supporters share"

Can't we just admit that it's because they're racist?

It's easier to cling to a vague notion that "the system" is responsible for black and hispanic outcomes if you don't live near them.

It is only vague if you don't understand it.

The roots of my support for President Trump are planted on the fact that he is not corrupt, incompetent, unhealthy: Hillary.

FYI - on or about this date in 1988, President Dukakis lead by 17 points (Gallup) over George H. W. Bush.

If anybody thinks that Hillary would be "good" to the majority of blacks and Latinos, they've been wasted or comatose the past 50 years.

Is this sarcasm?
Corrupt, incompetent, unhealthy (mentally), also describes Trump. Not sure why people can be so confident that one of these horrible candidates is so much better than the other.

Hillary would be good to the majority of blacks and Latinos when she doesn't start trade wars and a recession... or a real war and a recession. I find Trump too risky on these fronts.

Hillary wouldn't know what day it if Mrs. Huma Weiner didn't tell her. She could not parrot a speech without input of focus groups.

Some would say that a sociopathic liar is an unhealthy person.

Hillary promises to pay everyone's college debt! Where is the money?

There's insufficient time or space to list 40 years of Hillary lies, failures and (unindicted) crimes. The list is much shorter for Trump. Take a swing at it, Swammi.

How could it get worse? Could GDP growth slow below 1% for another eight years?

Unemployment among minority youths is what 78%?

FYI Hillary says she opposes TPP as does Trump. Will that start a trade war? Maybe China needs US markets more than it needs trade wars. Unlike the past pacts, Trump may be able to negotiate trade pacts that are favorable for the US, unlike the disasters previously negotiated by the Clintons.

The Middle East, Yemen, and North Africa are in hot wars, but US troops aren't dying. These are real wars that Obama/Hillary adventurism inadvertently started.

"Hillary wouldn’t know what day it if Mrs. Huma Weiner didn’t tell her. She could not parrot a speech without input of focus groups."

And Trump can't give a telepromter-free speech without finding some new way to offend potential supporters. Pretty sure that's worst. And his parallel to Mrs. Huma Weiner is doesn't have to tell him the time of day, just needs to print off every news article that mentions his name to feed his ego.

"Some would say that a sociopathic liar is an unhealthy person."

Applies to both Trump and Clinton.

"Hillary promises to pay everyone’s college debt! Where is the money?"

Trump promises to pay for everyone's healthcare AND double or triple Clinton's infrastructure spending while cutting taxes and pay off the national debt in 8 years. I don't Clinton's policies either, by the way.

"There’s insufficient time or space to list 40 years of Hillary lies, failures and (unindicted) crimes. The list is much shorter for Trump. Take a swing at it, Swammi."

Trump spouts exaggerated claims and lies *constantly*. Nearly everything that falls out of his mouth is a half truth of some kind. Hard to tell who's worse.

"How could it get worse? Could GDP growth slow below 1% for another eight years?"

There are a lot of GDP numbers worse than 1%. Like negative ones.

"FYI Hillary says she opposes TPP as does Trump."

Her opposition isn't the same. Since she originally supported it, I suspect it won't take many changes to get her back on board. Plus, her language on trade is more free trade than Trump's.

"Will that start a trade war?"

Probably not. But threatening tariffs sure will.

Unlike the past pacts, Trump may be able to negotiate trade pacts that are favorable for the US, unlike the disasters previously negotiated by the Clintons.

"Maybe China needs US markets more than it needs trade wars. Unlike the past pacts, Trump may be able to negotiate trade pacts that are favorable for the US, unlike the disasters previously negotiated by the Clintons."

Sure, he "may" get better deals, he may also give a speech without offending some new group. But too bad this isn't a reality tv show or a real estate deal involving gullible city councilors in Atlantic City. And NAFTA has been a net benefit to the U.S. Yes, there have been losses, but the gains outweigh them. Trump doesn't even understand what a trade deficit means. He talks about it as if China has literally stolen billions of dollars from the U.S. that we would otherwise have to pay off our debt. That's crazy. Also, trade isn't a zero sum game like real estate in Manhattan.

"The Middle East, Yemen, and North Africa are in hot wars, but US troops aren’t dying. These are real wars that Obama/Hillary adventurism inadvertently started."

And these are all real wars that Trump supported. Nothing he's done or says indicates that he'd be better at deciding when in where the U.S. should intervene. His ideas on nuclear weapons tells me he is way out of his league on this front, and his penchant of not listening to advisers scares the hell out of me.

Got anything else?

It gives me great pleasure knowing the people making arrogant, obnoxious, anonymous screeds in the comments section will never have anywhere near the level of responsibility and importance in their profession as people like Hillary Clinton, who for all her faults doesn't waste her time writing arrogant, obnoxious, anonymous screeds in the comments section.

FYI – on or about this date in 1988, President Dukakis lead by 17 points (Gallup) over George H. W. Bush.

Because conventions were held later in those days.

Yep, just checked. The Republican Convention was held in the upcoming week, 1988, and that's when Bush took the lead and never ever looked back even once.

The GOP Convention of 1988 was particularly smart and effective: they just hammered Dukakis on being an out of touch ACLU Boston liberal. One famous moment was putting 10-year-old Bush's mestizo grandson George P. Bush on stage to lead the Pledge of Allegiance.

Wasn't the 2016 Republican convention basically the Steve Sailer strategy in action? How well did that work?

Dear heorogar:
Lets stipulate to what you say about Sen Clinton
However, you have to admit, that at least in theory, a challenger could be better or worse (more corrupt, etc)
I think if you look at trump, he is worse: he is a con man who cheats widows (see ny times story); he is a failed business man; a serial lyer; an enabler of vile racist trash (remember, he started as a birther), etc

Fat Donald can barely waddle to the stage. He has over 3000 lawsuits against him for being a deadbeat and a fraud. He couldnt tell the truth for an hour if you held a gun to his head. Lulz to you bro.

He seems quite alright for his age. Certainly less decrepit than Hillary or Bernie.

Can’t we just admit that it’s because they’re racist?

No, we cannot, because your aversion to and prejudice about someone is not an observable property of that person. That the space between your ears is suffused with contempt is not an indicator that everyone else's is. Quit projecting.

What I have trouble understanding is why people who feel so negative about Republican leaders are Republicans if it is not race.

The Republican Party is an omnibus of people dissatisfied with the regnant orthodoxies traded in and enforced by the legal profession, academe, the media, the school system, the social work and mental health trade, and (now) the corporate elites, not to mention the depredations of the public employee unions. They're not necessarily enamored of the Capitol Hill cretins for whom politics is a business. You shouldn't have 'trouble understanding' that. It's not that esoteric.

Good stuff, Art. Hillary's gon'na pay their college deb, too.!

We in NY remember the 200,000 new western NYS jobs wannabe Senator Clinton promised, but then the pertinent jobs numbers precipitously decreased.

It's easy being a Democrat or an academic. Even a college kid can do it. Simply memorize five or six faux crises and the supporting lies. Then shriek that anybody that disagrees is "insensitive," "not a Christian" (as if a Democrat could rule on what is a Christian), a "racist. " etc.

regnant orthodoxy
circa 2009, THE DEFICIT is the moral equivalent of war
circa 2016, every GOP candidate has a tax plan that has huge cuts to the rich, ballooning the deficit

so when it comes to regnant orthodoxies, the GOP is way way ahead

PS: i feel sorry for you, you live in such a horrible fantasy world

The Democrats are a party with a coherent platform: The rule of America by upper-middle-class liberal arts graduates. Those who benefit from or sympathize with the cultural ruling class of America (media, education, government) vote for the Democrats.

The Republicans used to be a party with a coherent platform: The rule of America by Protestant MBAs.

In the last few decades, upper-middle-class white liberals have decided that race and gender matter more than class, and have kicked poor white men out of their coalition in exchange for keeping rich, educated white women. Similarly, the MBAs have decided they have more in common with their college classmates than they used to think.

For the last ten years the Republican Party has been composed of factions that hate each other and are held together only by their greater hatred of the ruling class.

Twenty years ago the Republicans were the party of the economic elites and the Democrats were the party of the cultural elites. Now the Democrats are the party of the elites with just enough identity politics to make it to 51%, and the Republicans are the party of working-class resentment.

Well said.

"For the last ten years the Republican Party has been composed of factions that hate each other and are held together only by their greater hatred of the ruling class."

But, of course, the Democrats' Coalition of the Fringes is only held together by ginning up hatred straight white males, as all the campus hate hoaxes demonstrate.

I was a lifelong Republican until the party was hijacked by the Christian right. I still vote Republican, but I'm registered Democrat because of my dissatisfaction with the Republican nomenklatura. Trump is the first good chance to throw a monkeywrench into that, so of course I'm very pleased he won the nomination and has a chance to win the general. I might return to the Republican party because of him.

I was a lifelong Republican until the party was hijacked by the Christian right.

The "Christian right"'s platform generally has the following planks: ban abortion (it was unsafe, illegal, and rare prior to 1967 and only legal most places do to a completely unprincipled court decree), remove homosexuality from school curricula (it was absent when I was in school ca 1975), do not declare homosexuals a protected class in law (something not done anywhere until about 1977 and something not done in New York City until 1985), do not recognize homosexual pseudogamy (an idea that never occurred to anyone until about 1987), enact covenant marriage laws (nb. no-fault divorce was non-existent prior to 1967), add some tax advantages for married couples, remove the financial disadvantage for those selecting private schools or homeschooling, institute prayer sessions in public schools (quite common prior to 1963), prohibit the open traffick in pronography (the law with regard to film up until 1966 and with regard to magazines up until 1951).

The "Christian right" hasn't gotten much out of Republican office holders bar an end to public funding of abortions and some experiments with charter schools. (Unless you count the 'abolition' of the 'marriage penalty' every few years). Even if they'd gotten everything, you'd have the public policy map you had during my father's young adult years, not exactly Calvin's Geneva.

By the way I want to add that I'm against Homosexuality as a lifestyle but not as a practice. I think every man needs to settle down and marry a good Christian women who will cuckold them but like every good, Christian man I enjoy taking it up the ass regularly. Helps clean out the system.

I'm for impersonating people both as a lifestyle and a practice.

I kind of agree with this guy about the monkey wrench. I don't know who would be worse. Hillary or Trump. But, Trump if he wins or maybe better yet if he almost wins could conceivably destroy the Republican coalition allowing for the rise of a different one. Better or worse I couldn't say, but Hillary is certainly a vote for the status quo.

Don't believe her about free college. Not gonna happen. Or at least not anymore than the free medical care happened.

We infer people's attitudes all the time. If we see someone going tp church a lot we infer that they are devout. If we see someone who is very commonly drunk we infer that they are alcoholic. And if we find someone who is constantly making derogatory remarks about (say) black people it;s entirely reasonable to infer that they are racist.

Now, because we can never get inside someone else's head, in all three instances above we may in fact be wrong. But the fact that we sometimes get things wrong does not mean it's a futile task to make links between people's outward actions and their inner mental states.

I don't know who you fancy you were responding to.

I've spent 20 years getting gray and wrinkled and getting no attention from anyone.

Racist? Who's a Racist?

Don't worry, the majority of people in the country have already discovered that, outside of this site's commenters.

And for a second I thought by less educated men you meant the 99% Democrat voting by the black population which barely has a high school degree on average.

Do you deny that races exist? of course not. You, perhaps, support Black Lives Matter- this group endorses, and uses violence against others who try to say things such as "all lives matter." They are explicitly racist.. Do you know the slogan of LaRaza? - "everything for the Race, nothing for those outside the Race. They, too, are explicitly racist. It has been noted by those in positions of authority in our government that only the white race can be racist. Calling white people racist because they support a candidate who happens to be the same color as them is ignorant and elitist; equalitarians should not be led astray by propaganda demonizing only one race as "racist": Social Justice fairness must recognize that ALL races are racist- it is racist to deny blacks or hispanics the right to be racist. Get with the program, racist.

Rothwell's analysis relies on Raj Chetty's studies of upward mobility by zip code.

Chetty was looking for long-term differences but his data is largely driven by regional economic cycles. For example, the Carolinas were booming during Chetty's control period of 1996-2000 due to things like golf course housing construction in places like Myrtle Beach. But when he looked at the children's incomes in 2011-2012, they had been hammered because nobody is building condos alongside golf courses anymore (Trump would like to, but there's no money in it anymore). The Carolinas were dead in the water after the 2008 crash.

In contrast, the Great Plains were doing much better in 2011-2012 than in 1996-2000 due to fracking and demand from China for agriculture, energy, etc.

Cruz did well in the "What's the Matter with Kansas?" states of the Great Plains where the old conservative verities are working well, while Trump did well in places like the Carolinas that got hit hard by 2008.

Racist in what sense? Not want to seem their people turned into a small minority in the country that their people had most to do with creating (at least in its successful, Manifest Destiny to Kittyhawk to the Moon phase).

The Democrats are the political party that courts 'La Raza' (yes, it does men 'race' in the biological sense). They are home to Black Lives Matter, which is essentially a black racialist organization. It is quite natural that given these facts, white men and women would organize to support their political interests.

What group is at risk of becoming a "Small minority" in this country? There's a lot of ballyhoo about white people becoming a minority-- but all of those projections still show white people remaining a plurality as far as they can forecast.

I'm not as ready to buy the racist argument.

I would give more weight to the point that Trumps claims enable or support their ability to blame or rationalize their poor economic performance on others. It is not their fault.

Calling people one disagrees with racist is the first sign of a weak position and weak mind. It's like the rattle of a snake intending to scare off any encounter.

"His popularity with less educated men is probably due to some other trait that these supporters share" . Yeah, a lack of education. No need to overthink Trump's tanking poll numbers among Americans taught to think for themselves.

Carefully question someone who fancy himself 'well-informed' or 'taught to think for himself' and you'll likely discover he merely regurgitates the prejudices of his social circle.

I'll get right on that. But no way I get done before Mr. Trump struggles to get to 40% at the polls on election day.

Since the advent of popular balloting, an incumbent party has won a 3d, 4th, 5th, or 6th turn at the wheel with a large margin in 1904, 1928, and 1940.

The Republican Party was completely dominant in elections to Congress during the period running from 1894 through 1908 and from 1918 through 1928. The Democratic Party had a similar dominance from 1932 through 1944. The Democratic Party has been suffering persistent deficits in legislative contests for 20 years and is in the worst position it has been in in the state legislatures since the 1920s.

So, in the course of thinking for yourself, you're telling us all that Hilligula will achieve the margins of the unblemished Mr. Hoover and both Roosevelts while leading a political party which is regarded at best ambivalently by the electorate and while being despised by most of the general public.

This would all be valid points if her opponent were not Trump. He's literally the only one of the 17 that she can beat. Maybe Carson as well. And she is literally the only Dem Trump has any chance against. They are the worst.

It's ok, we will all be bloviating for 3 more months and then we'll know who was right.

Regurgitating the prejudices of my social circle is tiring, but yes, Trump is that bad. Getting worse by the day, seemingly.

It's in your interest to place your wagers in bitcoins.

That's all you got, Art? I might just do that, although betting on Clinton today doesn't give much payout.

Vampire names for hated opponents would work better is she had long teeth. I guess it's a lot classier than what a lot of what people are calling the future POTUS.

You know, when people complained about Bush Jr. they could point to a million statistical civilian deaths in Iraq. Clinton? Emails ... handful of people dead in an embassy attack. Something about fundraising, but neither Republicans nor the MSM are about to bring the racket and related advertising dollars to an end ...

Considering the extent of opportunity she's had to make big mistakes, I think her list of faults while in positions of responsibility is not that bad.

Well I did say "statistical". Do you want the undercount, the count, or the overcount?

Anyways, the number is debated, and surely higher than the number killed violently. Do we apply the same methods to calculate deaths as used to arrive at tens of millions attributed to each of Mao and Stalin?

@30- everything smooth and quiet in the warren, comrade rabbit? yes, yes, the 'tanking poll numbers' are real, no murmurs of rebellion will ever be heard again, no evil dirt people will ever upset the warren and all the virtuous good credentialed people- until they do. squeeeeeeeee !!! oops, the problem glasses and neckbeards didn't make them go away after all.

Tyler, you should link to Ross Douthat's twitter feed for the proper response to this. Liberals want to wish away the Trump phenomenon and pretend that everything is hunky dory in this country. They're only hurting themselves and the country by clinging on to this flawed world view.

Silly for two reasons. First because liberals rarely think that everything is "hunky dory" -- just look at the hyperbole coming from the Sanders camp. And second because the sane conservatives are also distancing themselves from the Trump phenomenon in large numbers.

I thing by 'sane conservatives' you mean professional opinion journalists. What they do for a living explains their behavior more than any supposed 'sanity'.

No liberals don't think everything is hunky dory in this country and HRC is laid some idea for the small town working class. (To be honest I am not sold.) However, I don't see the Republican establishment laying any plans for the communities and reading Kevin Williamson the solution conservatives should give these communities is coupons for U-Haul trucks and lectures.

Judging by sub 5% unemployment, August report and Conor Sen twitter feed, I expect working class wages to SLOWLY increases the next several years.

The point is that Trump supporters have legitimate complaints, not that Trump is the best man to address them. This article seems to claim that Trump supporters in fact have nothing to complain about.

"It seems to be living near failure, not necessarily experiencing it yourself:" This is to be mocked?

Yes, watching your friend spiral into heroin addiction and then commit suicide is what you racist white scum deserve! You are such losers, it's over for you, you are dying off, we're replacing you with foreigners. What don't you understand?

Republicans promised they would become millionaires at a minimum if they voted Republican. They voted Republican. Republicans have won overwhelmingly. Repeatedly Republicans have won overwhelmingly.

Republicans failed to deliver.

When the voters ask why they aren't millionaires, the Republicans just blame other people. But then never do anything about those other people.

Trump is blaming the Republicans and promising to get rid of those other people Republicans blame.

When Republicans have been promising free lunches for 35 years and as a result Republicans have gained increasing power for 35 years but no one is getting a free lunch and everyone is agreed we are headed in the wrong direction, well, having invested so much in Republicans for the promised reward of free lunches, Trump is the final all-in bet in hopes of getting the big pay of infinite free lunches.

Of all the things Republicans have promised with Reagan and to some degree back to Nixon, to the present, what have Republicans delivered to the vast Republican base?

I will note that most of the promises since Reagan have been contrary to the policy and actions of the first decade of the Republican Party. In particular, the 14th Amendment.

Almost everything Trump promises violate the 14th Amendment.

Totally anecdotal, but most Trump fans I know seem to share one thing in common: a shared fear of foreigners. They hate the Chinese, they want Mexican immigrants to leave, and they are particularly fearful of Islam and the people who adhere to it. No one in our political system has 'done anything about this,' and it's all Trump talks about.

It would be sad if "the wall" was the whole deal, and that despite Trump (or one of his split personalities) saying it was figurative, the wall carries through to be the root of all the long term support.

Sorry, I'm sure that sentence wasn't long enough for some of you. I'll try again:

Look, having fences—my uncle was a great fence builder and scientist and engineer, Uncle John; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, a Danish craftsman, very good, very smart—you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it’s true!—but when you're a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that’s why I always start off: I learned Danish craftsmanship, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged—but you look at the fence deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (fences are powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four illegals —now it used to be three, now it’s four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years—but the Mexicans are great negotiators, the Hispanics are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.

So you know, the wall.

This was really good. Trump would make an interesting character to read.

We don't hate, fear, or dislike anyone in particular. We want to have a country, that's all.

I don't think that's terribly hard to understand.

Of course, Trump's campaign embodies everything that Republican party elites have been telling the Republican base for the past eight years. Is it surprising that the base would now be drawn to Trump rather than someone like George H.W. Bush; indeed, would the base today be drawn to the eternal optimist, Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan sold American Exceptionalism; Trump sells American Pessimism. To Reagan, everything was hunky dory in America; to Trump everything is dreadful. The base has been conditioned by eight years of negative propaganda, and Trump is the candidate that embodies it. As you sow, so shall you reap.

This is typically muddled liberal thinking. Trump's campaign has exposed a vast and bitter gulf between the Republican elites and the MC/LMC and rural whites who vote Republican. Read Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan, David Frum, John Podhoretz, Lindsey Graham, John McCain. Read National Review. Somebody (please) investigate the strange candidacy of ex-CIA, ex-Goldman Sachs, Mormon missionary Evan McMullin.

Wasn't this basically the premise of What's the Matter with Kansas? (not by any means an endorsement of that book, just an observation.) That rural America was voting for a Republican Party that was doing absolutely nothing for its economic interests?

Whites vote for Republicans because they don't want Democrats taking away their guns and money. Like most monopolies, the Republicans figured they could ignore their bases' concern over immigration and pursue their donors' agenda. Then Trump came along and saw the $100 bill lying on the floor and picked it up.

"Read Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan, David Frum, John Podhoretz, Lindsey Graham, John McCain. Read National Review" [SNIP]

Dear f _ cking God, no:

Its funny because its true.

Trump’s campaign embodies everything that Republican party elites have been telling the Republican base for the past eight years.

Trump's made a name for himself by plumping for immigration control and telling media enforcers to take their p's and q's and get stuffed. About 1/3 of Capitol Hill Republicans are explicit shills for the Chamber-of-Commerce and a mess of the remainder take the opportunity to take stands for border control only when their stance makes no difference. And, of course, the canned apologies uttered by Republican politicians and the shivs they're willing to stick into their own are as predictable as they are embarrassing. Trump bears little resemblance to 'Republican party elites', which is why Paul Ryan has been so graceless the last several months.

Art, you so crazy. Ryan's the 'graceless' one, Trump's just great.

Trump's campaign embodies everything that the Democratic party has been telling the nation for years. The economy is a zero-sum game, the political system is rigged to favor certain constituencies, the only way to get ahead to is take from someone else. The Overton Window has shifted to the point where anyone who asks for self-responsibility and self-reliance is an instant bigot. The Trump supporters just bought into the left's worldview and now they want someone to clear a path for them to the trough that all the other piggies are feeding from. When Black Lives Matters acolytes riot the government falls all over itself to placate them and to justify their loutish behavior. So why not make some loud threatening noises and see if we can get some too?

This. People don't realize Trump is running a leftist campaign. He literally is Hitler!

I find it interesting how this election cycle ha brought out all the clearest thinking types from their parents basements.

Because the Donald attempted a violent overthrow of the government?

Then when in jail he wrote a book explicitly listing those he considered 'less than human' and his plans to exterminate them?

And when elected the Donald will set up concentration camps for his enemies and steal all their belongings including their gold teeth?

You have entered the Godwin Zone.

The word 'literally' does not mean what you think it does.

This is not a novelty. Wm. Schneider was transmitting to his readers 30-odd years ago the results of survey research which indicated that there's a stronger bivariate association between voting behavior on the one hand and a respondent's sense of how people-in-general are doing than between voting behavior and the voter's own circumstances.

Good point. There are not enough farmers even in Iowa to support food price supports or ethanol, yet enough consumers hurt by those 2 programs support them. Not enough blacks to support AA BTW. Many issues like that.

There's a theory some people in survey research subscribe to that if you want to know how people think things actually are and you are worried about desirability bias + similar issues, you should ask them about their neighbors and not themselves. e.g. Do you hold negative views of [racial group]? Of course not! Do your neighbors? Oh, definitely!

Some people are quite shameless in their antagonisms. Against evangelicals, for example.

Surely, evangelicals have only kind words for atheists. Or others.

When you go around wishing an eternity of suffering upon people unless they do things EXACTLY your way, don't be surprised if in return they think giving you the time of day out of politeness is quite enough.

Well, evangelicals rarely do that. But, believe it or not, if you've met a few folks in your time, you can usually spot just the type pretty quick. I like to talk theology and religion, but not with fishers of men.

I'm too disgusting to fish any men other than middle-aged meth users.

Meth heads are a little too missionary-oriented about their ways too, imo. Keep the subject off drugs and you might do OK :)

And if you actually do want to know what their neighbors think, you ask them what's on the mind of the family two doors down.

Characteristics of urban life being what they are nowadays, they're only tangentially acquainted with the family two doors down.

Yes that has been my theory all along. Really not many people want manufacturing jobs and those who do, do not vote at high rates and even less are republicans. It is other people who think that there are a lot of people who want manufacturing jobs and are sympathetic.

BTW the one person that I talk to a lot who is a Trump supporter (huge supporter BTW) says he is pro immigration (his mother is an immigrant and help a guy immigrate helping him get through the process), he is just obsessed with the queue jumping. Arguing with him caused me to come up with my scheme for immigration:

I would like the USA to return to the free immigration policies of the past (like when my grandparents immigrated). Then incoming immigrants where checked for communicable diseases and if clean they were granted entry.

BUT seeing that:

There is a large percent of voters who are anti-immigration and a larger percent who are against illegal immigration.
It seems absurd to have a law that you have no intention of enforcing.
The illegal immigrants who have been here the longest are better off than those who would have wanted to come but did not come because they did not want to come illegally.
The illegal immigrants who have been here the longest are better off because they have had a chance to earn more money than those in Mexico.
The illegal immigrants who have been here the longest are better off because they have had a chance to learn some English which might help them get a better job in Mexico.

So suppose we deport illegal immigrants starting with those who have been here the longest and for each one deported we let in a person from the queue. Or maybe we let in two people from the queue for each illegal deported.

This seems to be a reasonable compromise between pro and anti immigration voters.

BTW The Trump supporter that I talk to regularly, says though that immigration is not his big reason to support Trump, it is that he is against Middle-East wars and he sees Hillary Clinton as a hawk who will give us 8 more years of war. She voted for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan plus pushed for bombing Libya and sending weapons to Syria. He may be right, that she is too hawkish. Go Gary Johnson.

Tell your friend that Trump was for all of those interventions, too. The difference is that Hillary might actually read the memos about the costs and benefits of such interventions and listen to the military experts on the ground. With Trump, who knows. The man goes from isolationist to extreme interventionist in one sentence. Some times it takes two.

Queen Hill is demonstrably more reckless, being the head of a troika of women who counseled Obama on blowing up the Middle East and currying the support of PNAC alums.

Given her track record of voting for every intervention proposed while in Congress, and from all reports, egging on a reluctant Obama while serving in his administration. Hillary is almost certain to intervene while Trump is simply an unknown. You decide.

Hillary is the classic archetype of a one-term president, she's old and hated and only going to win because her opponent is worse, and she's the 'third term'. Plus she will likely have a (probably mild) recession on her watch. So 4 years not 8, ironically she's penciling out to be Bush I in a dress, full resume and all.

"...ironically she’s penciling out to be Bush I in a dress, full resume and all."

Bush I without the high poll numbers.

Except she has a pretty big pole I'm betting. But so does Trump. It makes it hard to for to decide on account of my penis envy *WINK.

JWatts, that's right. I'd vote for Bush I a thousand times over Hillary. Fortunately I'm not in a swing state so I can #FeelTheJohnson without worrying about that helping Trump.

@FeelTheJohnson.....damn I never thought of that so that's another dick-based candidate I need to consider now. It's tough being a cuckservative these days I need to find out whose going to shaft me the hardest *WINK

Trump likes Putin, and Putin has a war going in Syria....

“His popularity with less educated men is probably due to some other trait that these supporters share” They are gullible? He makes big promises and they believe him?

Just what did BO admirers get out of him that was actually on the menu in 2008?

Trumps promises are bigger. "We will win so much, you will get tired of winning." "Mexico will pay for the wall." "We will bring all those jobs back from Mexico and China."

I've been personally raped by a Mexican on multiple occasions so I know Trump will keep me safe unlike Hillary.

I'm too physically repulsive for anyone to take an interest in raping me.

Ha-ha that may be true but it's more of a power dynamics thing *Wink I'm told and these Mexican gang bangers like to show who's in charge. That's why I'm voting Trump so he can get these thugs out of here!

No one wants power over me. They just want to be somewhere else when I'm present.

Nothing. They thought he'd deliver what Sanders offered explicitly, but Obama tried to negotiate for a few years until it became obvious that every inch he moved to the right, they'd just step back an inch further and begin demands anew. Say, 2010, when Obama supporters all over the place were whining about how he gave them the shaft - but I'm surprised many ever thought he'd go that far left while in office. I mean, stuff's gotta go through legislators too ...

This makes sense if you remember that many Republican voters are only a couple generations or so from rural backgrounds and blue-collar urban backgrounds. The postwar period opened up higher education, more middle class and professional jobs, suburban living, which enabled relatively rapid upward mobility. Their material prosperity and social status are more precarious, and thus they feel they have more to lose than people from poorer backgrounds.

The ratio of professional, administrative, and supervisory jobs has increased only very slowly the last 60-odd years. What's happened since the 1920s is that the share of the workforce who are proprietors has declined (especially farm proprietors) and the share who are salaried employees has increased. The ratio of proprietors and salaried employees (on the one hand) to wage-earners on the other has increased as well, but at a modest pace. Another thing that's happened is that formal schooling has grown ever more distended, to the point that annual awards of baccalaureate degrees now encompass north of 40% of a typical age cohort (when it might have been 1/3 that in 1930).

What I'm trying to say is young people should come back down to earth and take advice from me. Get a shitty job in some nowheresville in upstate-New York and maybe, with a bit of luck, you can become a successful internet blog cuckservative commenter like me. Take my advice kids you won't regret it! *Wink!

Or take up impersonating people on the internet. It's a distraction which takes your mind off what you see in the mirror every morning.

@art Deco The ratio of professional, administrative, and supervisory jobs has increased only very slowly the last 60-odd years.

That is interesting can you provide a link for that, I just tried a couple of searches and did not find anything. That would be evidence that we have too many people going to college, which I believe is true.

Of course its true, people need to devote more time to curmudgeonly, old-man commenting on internet blogs. Kids today don't appreciate the wisdom of people like me....NOT GET OFF MY LAWN!

Curmudgeonly old men cause no end of irritation to arrested-development cases.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics has historical data. It can be frustrating to fish it out, though. Not the best organized site.

We're talking about a specific segment of the population - relatively better off Trump supporters - not the entire population.

Sounds like re-realization of Andrew Gelmans Red State Blue State book's main revelation - you are more conservative the richer you are, and the poorer the state you live in.

Also jives with the idea (from Hanson? Alexander?) that conservatism is politics that assume scarcity (something along the lines of "being closer to people with poor life outcomes so they see how bad it could get"), and liberalism the politics that assume abundance (richer area, not as far to fall materially).

I realize the first statement is about averages (if i remember the book right) and the second is more about the tails, but seems plausible they go together.

you are more conservative the richer you are, and the poorer the state you live in.

The personal income per capita of the states varies only modestly, with a range which runs about 75% to 120% of national means.

Red state residents do mostly have lower incomes than those of Blue states. And, it seems they must all be poor to the Blue state residents. However, this is not really the case as the cost of living is also much lower in Red states.

I myself am an example. I am an experienced Electrical Engineer making $80K in IN. By moving to CA I could expect to make much more, maybe $130K. But, here I can buy a 3,000 sq. ft. home for $300K. In CA the same home would cost millions.

Yep. And yes it is the expected pay in Silicon Valley (Plus stock options of course, that's what everyone hopes for. But, they have those in IN too.)

"starting salaries for investment banking positions with a bachelors degree (assistant or junior analyst position) should range from $100,000 to $150,000 after bonus. Most of the major banks in NYC are offering a starting salary of around $75,000 plus a $15,000 to $20,000 signing bonus. Further bonus can range from $20,000 to $40,000 depending on performance. Starting salaries with an MBA degree (associate position) range after bonus from $120,000 to $220,000."

Starting salaries for Engineers in IN are around $50k. That's $50K in IN. Or, $150K in NYC. That's a house, a new car, and paying for your student loan in IN. Exactly, what does $150K buy you in NYC?

Who said anything about getting married? But, you are correct. There is nothing at all to do here in fly-over country. There is nothing but corn fields for as far as the eye can see. Flat, empty, ... barren. Better stay in NYC where you can live the high life on $150K.

Funny you should mention Kokomo. I live there. Well Indianapolis to be exact, but close enough. Personally, it has taken me to Mexico and China on business trips and I lived in Grenoble, France for a year (on the company dime.) for a collaborative design with Siemens. Globalization you know. It effects everyone.

So, I take it you are an investment banker yourself? You know. London and Singapore and all the glamorous people and all that.

LOL. Yes, I agree. All the gen Yrs should do their best to become investment bankers and movies stars. The fewer STEM degrees we have the better. Let them play Icarus, while I live my boring little life, in my boring little town. Maybe if there are fewer STEM graduates my paltry salary will go up.

I wish we could bring in boatloads of H1Bs. Can't really. These days it is easier just to do the engineering in China, hence, all the business trips. Except for the air pollution, the suburbs around Beijing where the engineers I work with is quite nice.

You have have you? Ok. Typical, suburb on the outskirts of Beijing. You are in the middle of the road in a residential neighborhood. What do you see?

The answer is walls. Their yards are surrounded by solid walls about 6 to 8 foot high. Walls everywhere in the suburbs. Inside their houses are pretty similar to ours. All the engineers anyway, want to live like westerners.

Lol. You keep trying harder. Maybe you will convince all those new Investment bankers slaving away their 20's on 80 hr work weeks while the principles party whom they have a 1% chance of joining some day.

Yeah as I mention in a post below I haven't quite figured out the reason for the trump-engineer support. But it is a bit uncanny.

I suspect it's the gentry-elite divide reflected in M. Church's class system proposal. Engineers, Trump and ISIS are all inherently gentry. Elites, trading in abstract ideas, are the enemy to upper gentry. . Trump is inherently gentry as he'll never outgrow his queens upbringing and commercial real estate "career". (Setting aside that in his chosen profession he's an ugly joke and financial failure). Golf is as high as his aspirations rise. I'm sure he's afraid of riding or taking a boat out into blue water. A coward. Golf is a gentry aspiration.

Sorry if a bit off topic but isn't it more accurate to say that you are able to purchase land more cheaply in Indiana rather than Canada? Are there really very many $200,000 structures built on $800,000 plots of land?

I believe you are correct the difference in the price of land is the primary difference in cost between the two regions. This being mostly due to zoning laws limiting the available residential land. However, there are many $200,000 structures on $800,000 plots of land. Basically, older houses.

Re:scarcity, there's established stuff about threat I think where self identified Conservatism tends towards a stronger startle response (as a simple untrained response distinct from being less brave or aggressive), more salient attention to negative stimuli, more cautiousness about new information so more rechecking (and in a sense much less gullible as well as slower learning).

I would be cautious of taking this distinction towards a "scarce / abundant" worldview as such.

Just off hand you can think of many environmental and income inequality measures on which self identified Conservatives tend to believe in great abundance and sufficiency of resources (e.g. you can do what you like to the environment and use whatever resources because its so abundant and self replenishing, income inequality and taxes don't matter because there's still enough for all...). Not known as advocates of the zero growth economy.

If the dumb corn field people voted in a guy who attacked the central bank, the people in the blue states would see their wealth go up in a puff of smoke, and the guys selling corn would be buying their used BMWs on Ebay.

To use in the demolitions derby of course. No one would be caught dead driving one of those.

I see no mention of Hillary Clinton as a source of Trump support. Both, the Democrats and the Republicans have fielded unusually disliked candidates. There will probably be more cross party voting (both ways) than ever before as people feel they must choose between the lesser of two evils, and find it unusually difficult to decide this year.

Sounds a bit like the filters are:

- deeply concerned about and loyal to their immediate neighbours and kin in society (at the expense of strangers, if need be). That's why local distress that doesn't personally affect them affects their preference.
- engaged with politics (rare for the very precarious classes of people)
- personally not precarious enough to be scared about a risky candidate
- yet not rich enough or educated enough or career track enough to consider themselves Establishment and cheer on the existing system simply because Turkeys Don't Vote For Christmas
- oriented relatively more to national pride and civic pride than personal pride (America being "Great Again" is an end of itself, not just a means to further personal ego tripping and self satisfaction).
- and probably don't really care too much about losing a few consumer comforts to the seas of a slightly rougher economy, if "that is what it takes". Not exactly the "But... I could lose muh iPhone!" tribe.

There may be a degree of self selection for political engagement simply in his supporters being people who are willing enough to take the time to look up what he says and not what he is reported on saying (often some value of nuts, but saliently less so than the MSM's selective-cum-literal-minded echo).

(Likely a glib interpretation, but contrarian enough to write.)

The Brexit vote went the way it did because enough voters perceived excessive immigration to be a problem. Most of the Trump supporters I know personally express similar views to me as well. I suspect that the pollsters are refusing to ask questions they don't want answers to - which is why the pollsters appear to be confused. Likewise, pollsters should also be asking how much the person being polled loathes Hillary.

How are the pollsters 'confused'? THey had Trump in the lead throughout the Rep primary, and he won to the shock of the pundits. But now he's polling like he's going to lose. If he wins we'll know they missed something. Just remember, for every one of you that loathes Hillary there's at least another that loathes Trump more. And most loathe both but more of them will vote for Her.

The pollsters aren't confused at all. Polls measure current sentiment. They do not predict the future. All they can say is that if the election were held today Hillary would win.

Except the polls are skewed just as they were in 2012. In that election we had Unskewed polls which actually predicted the correct results.

Yes, some polls are biased. But again, I would say those pollsters aren't confused either. They are trying to influence the electorate in a particular direction.

I'm continually confronted with the skew of my crooked, chipped, and decaying teeth.

I assume you are being sarcastic, since Unskewed Polls most certainly did not predict the result of the 2012 election.

Donald Trump steals from widows

(see the ny times story on how a trump branded real estate course cheated the young widow whose army husband just died in combat)

no matter what Hillary has done, she hasn't stooped that low

Hillary screwing over millions of people as a corrupt Secretary of State bent on Middle East destabilization is a statistic.

I think it's fair to say that Hillary has enriched herself by trading taxpayer dollars for Clinton Foundation donations and speech fees. That screws over all the widows and everyone else.

No mention of Fox News Breitbart, Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity?

There is no Trump without a deranged echo chamber rightwing media.

The center-right media morphed into a purely rightwing media starting in about 2005 when they started defending Bush's conduct of the Iraq War even as the rest of the world realized it was a disaster.

It became an echo chamber after Obama got elected and became a deranged echo chamber rightwing media around the time that Sarah Palin started accusing Obama of creating "death panels".

A shockingly large portion of the Republican base gets 100% of their news from within the rightwing media bubble. They ONLY watch Fox News, they ONLY listen to Rush Limbaugh, they ONLY visit the Drudge Report.

Want to know where Trump came from? Here's your answer:

I thought Trump was an anti-Semite, Stars of David and pearl clutching about Hitler and all that. Now you're telling me he sprang forth from Andrew Breitbart's forehead like Athena from Zeus, fully formed? Could, could the media be sending me contradictory signals, Cooper?

The guy up top is right, we're just racists and looking out for our own interests.

Unenthusiastic Trump supporter here. He wasn't my 1st or 2nd choice in the primary. But given the alternative is Clinton, its not going to be a hard choice.

Above average income, graduate STEM degree from a good school, early retired engineering manager for Fortune 500. Fair amount of overseas travel, lots of working experience with foreign nationals. Hired a bunch of H1B engineers.

Clinton is a known (bad) actor. Clearly corrupt, and has used political position for personal gain. Poicy positions are almost uniformly bad.

Trump is much more of a wildcard. I view him as basically a moderate democrat on most issues. I don't have very high expectations.

There are two issues that I see as important. One is the Supreme Court. I know Clinton's choices will be extremely bad. Trump can hardly do worse, and he might do significantly better. I'd vote for him on that basis alone.

Second issue is immigration. I believe the right level of immigration is close to zero, with the small delta above that carefully filtered by what benefits the US. 300 million people is enough. Our current policy is irresponsible and naive to the point of insanity, and Clinton has promised to make it worse. Again, I don't hold out a lot of hope that Trump will actually do better, but he might.

I don't really care about whether the top tax rate is 33% or 38%, and details of that sort. Its debatable, and we can fix it later if we get it wrong.

1. What's the rationale for the claim that trump s ct appointments would be better than Clinton appointments ?

2. Anyone notice there seems to be a lot of engineer support for trump? Odd stuff.

3. Wildcard for president!

1. He means that they would be more likely to rule conservative obviously. Hillary would clearly nominate liberal justices. I don't think he means that they would be more qualified or anything.

2. Engineers for Trump? Not that I have noticed. They seem to split pretty much along Blue state Red state lines from what I have seen.

3. ???

Hillary Clinton will undoubtedly nominate justices who are not generous in their First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment support.

I thought this Washington Post story was pretty awful, an example of someone sticking doggedly to a theory (in this instance a materialist explanation for Trump) even after realizing that the data didn't support this conclusion.

Ignorance is bliss.

Taking these studies on the surface, I will give some respect to Trump supporters if they are altruistic, even if their altruism is misguided. We all would like a more perfect Union, and should support those we believe will get us there. Good for them ..

But .. I am not really convinced. In the vernacular, 'I'm not quite there yet.' I am still worried that Republicans divided down the party, throwing moderate after moderate under bus after bus until they were left with .. Trump.

Own it, take your lumps, and try to be an adult party in 2020.

Except for the fact that Trump threw the "conservatives" under the bus and his opposition within the party comes mainly from those very conservatives.

Perhaps we agree. Once the Republicans had thrown out moderates, primaried themselves to a fringe, and that fringe came up empty (50 or 60 "repeals" of Obamacare as theater in the House), then yes, when shutting down government, default, wasn't enough of a threat THEN Trump.

Which "moderates" (whatever that means) are you talking about?

Democrats and progressives your situation unless you are an under-represented minority. In fact, because they don't believe in objective right and wrong they don't believe in any objective morality and have empathy for No One. And their pretend empathy for minorities is just that a show, just Hillary Clinton a robot, just a non-human parroting meat bags. In the long run we're all dead so what does it matter? Am I right?

Real or fake Thomas, don't take this too hard, but here is a truth: Every failed movement needs a last man to turn out the lights.

You don't have to be that man.

There's something to that thesis. I'm voting for Trump and I live in San Francisco, so I'm surrounded by failure and reminded of it every day.

SF has a per capita income of $47k. If it were a nation, it would be in the top 20 on earth.

Explain to me how your feels aren't just feels, how this "failure" is real.

Wasted vote in CA

"SF has a per capita income of $47k. If it were a nation, it would be in the top 20 on earth."

LOL. Try the standard adjustments for purchasing power. Also, there are are substantially few children and families with children in 'the City' than in normal places, that's a big 'per capita' income booster right there.

California residents have less "purchasing power" than those in Afghanistan for the same reason. Victims of success, not failure.

Oregon recently rejected, handily, drivers' licenses for illegal aliens. The folks in Oregon live close to failure, in fact many of them fled there to escape the failure. And please, before you tell me all about California's 'comeback', look at the true poverty rate (adjusted for housing prices) and its NAEP scores (at Lousiana levels).

Links? The NAEP thing looks obviously wrong.

It is wrong. But California's scores are quite low nonetheless.

"His popularity with less educated men is probably due to some other trait that these supporters share."

Imaginary Rich Person syndrome. Patient zero I suspect was 'Joe the Plumber'.

The IRP patient spends a lot of his mental life planning for a period right after a fuzzy, unclear event has made him rich. For example, 'Joe the Plumber' was very much concerned about how higher tax brackets would impact the profits from his highly successful plumbing business and hoped to change the election in 2008 because of that. Joe, of course, never bothered to actually get a plumber's license or start a plumbing business.

IRP is actually pretty old and it impacts white young men disproportionately. Before we even had computers, we had services that catered but rarely attempted to treat its symptoms. For example, Playboy, GQ, Forbes were all magazines were all magazines from a pre-Internet era dedicated to IRP. (Soldier of Fortune was designed for a related condition, IBAP...imaginary bad ass person).

Since IRP patients are obsessed with the imaginary problems they would have if they were rich, Trump appeals greatly to them. For example, this is how abolishing the estate tax has become one of the leading planks of this 'populist' whose theme is rejecting the 'republican elite'.

Subscribing to Forbes actually worked for me. YMMV.

(I think the 80's version had good coverage of "causes of failure" in companies, and had a bit of a moral backbone.)

Not touching the race bit, but at the very least, young women seem to spend at least as much time fantasising about the lifestyle of the rich and famous (the travel, the clothes, the possessions), and imagining being such princesses. Probably more time, if anything.

It's insane that the two main candidates are equally as insane as each other!

Part of the Trump vote is PC-backlash. Many supporters feel that it has become impossible to discuss any issue without being labeled something horrible. Point out the fact that black-on-black crime is a massive problem and boom, you're immediately a "racist." There is a big population (which skews male) that prefers "straight-talk" even if harsh/offensive at times.

The Public Timeline is considered an especially sensitive place. It is what new users see, and all registered users will see the posts published there. Moderators can exclude users from appearing in the public timeline it at any moment, without warning, permanently or temporarily. Consider it a privilege to be published in the public timeline, not a right. If you are excluded from the public timeline, you can still use all other features on the site just like any other user. Advertising and commercial entities are not allowed on this instance. We are completely non-profit and all our expenses are payed for by donations from individuals.

Comments for this post are closed