Countering The Narrative

A surprising fact about the 2016 election is that Trump received fewer votes from whites with the highest levels of racial resentment than Romney did in 2012…Trump’s vote totals improved the most among swing voters: low-socioeconomic status whites who are political moderates.

That is from recent research by Justin Grimmer and William Marble, hat tip anonymous.

Comments

Man, talk about burying the lede. Who was Romney's opponent in 2012?

Yes, lol. If they had said the most misogynist, I would have been surprised. But it is hardly difficult to believe that members of the KKK did not vote for Obama

But they did vote for Hillary. I think the point is that they are not responsible for Trump's success

Or they simply did not vote at all.

But for those that did, Trump's birther credentials was definitely on the plus side of the ledger.

The facts are against me, but I'm tacking upwind for all I am worth.

The fact that more racists were motivated to vote against a black presidential candidate in 2012 is tacking upwind? It seems self-evident, and the birther aspect was in large part an attempt to claim that Obummer was not, and could not be, our president.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

The birther rumors Hillary started?

Fake news.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

You are aware that the KKK was historically a Democrat institution???

Hasn't been for a long time. You are aware current KKK members are Republican???

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Trump’s primary voters were more moderate than the typical Republican primary voter. So West Virginia is Trump’s best state and Obamacare is very popular in West Virginia. Plus Trump just signed the United Mine Workers of America pension bailout which was crafted by the Democrat Manchin.

So let’s take a look at just West Virginia—how did that blue state transform into a very red state from 1992 to now? There are a myriad of reasons but I believe Democrats’ support for climate change action plays a big role. Also traditional values would appeal to the voters in that state. So Trump is essentially a Jim Webb Democrat which means he is a nationalist/traditionalist which plays well among older moderate white Americans.

Think about the social issues Bill Clinton ran on in 1996. Now think what Hillary Clinton ran on in 2016.

Also, the opiod crisis is rather salient in WV and the rust belt more generally.

I'm so glad MR requires a valid email address for posting comments.

Well, sort of - there actually seems to a plausbility check in place over the last few months. And address harvesting just might explain why the comments section was only turned off for a few days.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Is this countering the narrative though? In the second paragraph it says: “Trump saw this decrease in support even though whites who turned out to vote and had high levels of racial resentment voted for Trump at higher rates than they chose Romney. But there was also a shift in attitudes: fewer whites had high levels of racial resentment in 2016 than in 2012.” This seems consistent with a common narrative that the arc of society is bending towards progress and racial equality but a shrinking racist rump is becoming more adamant in resisting it.

Respond

Add Comment

It's dishonest to present "racial resentment" results without providing details on how "racial resentment" is defined: by agreement with questions like "blacks should work their way up without special favors." The measure would more properly be called "racial egalitarianism."

See https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/measuring-racial-resentment-problems/

The "racial resentment" scale is basically a measure of the extent to which respondents decline to blame white people for the poor socioeconomic outcomes experienced by black people.

An interesting corollary of this is that black people who are highly resentful of white people will tend to score very low on the racial resentment scale, precisely because they do blame white people for their problems.

It's all very Orwellian.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Hence the resentment that he won. The last three presidential candidates that lost expressed disdain for this type of person. Which indicated that in both parties there are large numbers of people who agree. Not that Obama expressed something like this in 2008, but on a sliding scale was less offensive than his opponent.

Respond

Add Comment

What did McCain say that was more offensive than Obama's infamous: "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. ...And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Everyone knew a Democrat was going to win the general election in 2008 after the 2006 midterms...and Bush grew even more unpopular as Election Day got closer. So the 2008 Democrat primary was the real contest that year and believe it or not Hillary won older moderate whites by fairly wide margins.

Believe it or not Hillary won more popular votes in the primary but the superdelegates sided with Obama because his primary voters were more appealing to the Democratic establishment than the older moderate whites that Hillary won. And before you take issue with the popular vote totals just know Texas had both a caucus and a primary and Hillary won the popular vote while Obama won the caucus and more delegates. So in an election with a caucus as a subset of the primary Hillary would get more overall votes but Obama would still get more delegates...and it wasn’t an Electoral College situation in which Obama’s strategy might lead to fewer popular votes because Obama wanted to win the Texas popular vote.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

there's no "surprising fact" here ... and no fact at all, in fact.

Grlmmer/Marble have absolutely no method to factually measure "racia resentment" in voters of the huge 2016 national election.]
Nor can they factually identify and catalog all "votes from whites with the highest levels of racial resentment".

the study/conclusions are preposterous on their face and in no way "Facts"

No, they aren’t countering the left wing narrative, just refining it.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

anonymous finally gets his much awaited Trump thread.

And he doesn’t even comment. Yet he spams 50 Trump comments in every other non Trump thread. Maybe he’s only derailing ? Hrmm

Respond

Add Comment

There was much more racial resentment being openly displayed in the New York Times against white men in 2016 than in 2012, when the George Zimmerman fiasco was the main harbinger of the coming Great Awokening.

Basically, if you just assume that everything you are told by the prestige press is projection onto their enemies of their own worst traits you'll understand more about how the world works than if you trust the NYT.

Let’s get 5 specific examples with quotes of “openly displayed” racial resentment from the Nytimes against white men.

That’s one every 73 days. I’m sure you can link 5 specifics?

"In a Homecoming Video Meant to Unite Campus, Almost Everyone Was White" Jan. 1, 2020

"The Religion of Whiteness Becomes a Suicide Cult" Aug. 30, 2018

"Sarah Jeong Joins The Times’s Editorial Board" Aug. 1, 2018

"Can My Children Be Friends With White People?" Nov 11, 2017 (Betteridge's law applies)

"Trump Reflects White Male Fragility" Aug. 4, 2016

5 articles for you, you can pull the quotes at your leisure.

My favorite of the gems Sailer almost daily mines from the NYT isn't from 2016, but close enough: a January 11, 2017 item in the "This Week in Hate" feature they debuted ten minutes after the election ... because it's a good example of the paper's odd whipsawing, from crime to crime, incident to incident (or, as often, hoax to hoax), in its selection of which details are salient to report or omit - by reporters who, we are often told, are firewalled from the editorial side. Thus: "Four people have been charged with a hate crime, among other charges, in the beating in Chicago of a teenager with mental disabilities, which was broadcast on Facebook Live on January 3. The video shows one of the suspects shouting about Donald Trump and 'white people.'” Full stop.

I will be disappointed if, in 50 years, the first chapter of the big doorstop history book by Doris Kearns Goodwin's great-granddaughter, "Team of Haters" or what-have-you, doesn't begin with a breathless relation of this very incident, footnote citing the NYT of January 11, 2017.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

While everyone over interprets this result, I'll just point out that you always expect swing voters to change the most from election to election.

.....almost by definition.....

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Trump campaigned as an economic moderate: taxes on the rich, reforming ACA to cover more people at lower cost. The question is, why anyone believe him.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment