Support NeoGAF

[FinaruDensetsu]

Why are you acting like Democrats were completely destroyed and that Trump didn't have one of the smallest wins in US history? I'd say the distrust and hate towards Hillary Clinton contributed waaaay more than racist snowflakes being turned off by her identity politics heavy platform. Dems need to go back to their 50 state strategy instead of just targeting areas that already lean blue, but that does not mean they need to tailor their platform to be accepting of bigotry

Exactly. Pretending that people who are racists are fine people is a dumb strategy. Sure you might be able to trick some of them for one term and then when they realize that you really just lied to them to get their vote, they'll just vote for the party of racism again, and be even more fervent about it.

Such ephemeral victories while betraying what the party's philosophy is about is not at all worth it.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

We had a black president tho..

 

[Platinumstorm]

Why are you acting like Democrats were completely destroyed and that Trump didn't have one of the smallest wins in US history? I'd say the distrust and hate towards Hillary Clinton contributed waaaay more than racist snowflakes being turned off by her identity politics heavy platform. Dems need to go back to their 50 state strategy instead of just targeting areas that already lean blue, but that does not mean they need to tailor their platform to be accepting of bigotry

Because we were destroyed from an electoral college perspective. We've neglected our rural states hardcore, and it's created a situation where the liberal vote is concentrated. There are decades of work to do to reverse that in rural areas. We have a big problem when our rural citizens won't be able to get the support they need because of the flight of younger people.

If you read through my post history I consistently have talked about changing message delivery without changing the message, as well as advocating for a 50 state strategy, and frankly I take it one step further and I think there is a big need for a local strategy within each state. Senator Sanders also takes a very similar position regarding message delivery.

I used the example of Senator Obama because it shows an example of how those lines are blended.

 

[BajiBoxer]

But but Sanders said that they aren't racists........

Honestly, I could care less either way. Let Sanders try to siphon some of these people away from the GOP, while the mainstream focuses on the traditional base.

 

[theignoramus]

2016 convinced me that there are two problems in America

White people who are racists

White people who ignore racists

The country was built and cultivated on racial malice or apathy, I don't believe it will change without some cataclysmic event. America had a chance to redefine itself after the Civil War and the death of the Confederacy but it failed completely.
It was given yet another chance after WW2 and the defeat of fascism, but it dropped the ball again.
I don't know that there will be a third opportunity like there was the first two times.

 

[Man-is-Obsolete]

But the Obama to Trump voters!!!!

 

[Yekshemesh]

2016 convinced me that there are two problems in America

White people who are racists

White people who ignore racists

AKA The "I'm fiscally conservative but socially liberal" white republicans.

 

[Sinfamy]

So many zingers in this thread.
Absolutely no constructive comments.

Guess it was soley racism guys, absolutely nothing that could have been done.
It's almost like Democrats have been hemorrhaging voters at every level of government, local and federal for the past eight years.

Was this election fueled significantly by racism, yes.
But Democrats are pathetic losers.
Nanci Peloci can't even string together two coherent words of a plan to regain voters.

 

[MotionBlue]

Not surprising about the role of racism. Conservative media has spent the last 30 years convincing their base that minorities and Liberals were the root of all evil.

I hope Trump hasn't poisoned populism in North America permanently

Right. We should actually make them feel their racism is totally ok so we can get their votes. Nothing sleazy about that

See above

That is how an overwhelming majority of the civil rights movements post WW2 were successful. A known tacit of human psychology is putting people on the defensive makes it harder to change their mind. Social change is slow and cumbersome, but inevitable.

Is this something younger people simply ignore of forget? Or is it easier to be insufferably self righteous to people who agree with you?

 

[Condom]

Isn't the title misleading? All they conclude is that it played a bigger role than authoritarianism no?

 

[Makonero]

Isn't the title misleading? All they conclude is that it played a bigger role than authoritarianism no?

Wouldn't fit

 

[tbm24]

So many zingers in this thread.
Absolutely no constructive comments.

Guess it was soley racism guys, absolutely nothing that could have been done.
It's almost like Democrats have been hemorrhaging voters at every level of government, local and federal for the past eight years.

Was this election fueled significantly by racism, yes.
But Democrats are pathetic losers.
Nanci Peloci can't even string together two coherent words of a plan to retain voters.

So then what's your point? It sounds like you agree with what the study and commentary in the OP is talking about. No one said it was the only one, just one of the biggest if not the biggest motivating factor. It would be nice for that fact to not be set aside to appeal to economic woes as if such a thing exists disconnected from said racism.

 

[The Last Wizard]

 

[Fenderputty]

That is how an overwhelming majority of the civil rights movements post WW2 were successful. A known tacit of human psychology is putting people on the defensive makes it harder to change their mind. Social change is slow and cumbersome, but inevitable.

Is this something younger people simply ignore of forget? Or is it easier to be insufferably self righteous to people who agree with you?

A. I'm not young.
B. Insufferable self-righteousness is a mighty big accusation to be tossing around considering the post you just made. More like delicious irony.

 

[commedieu]

Was this election fueled significantly by racism, yes.

well yeah, all data points to that. No one said it was the sole reason either.

Not sure what you're addressing really, when you agree with the edgy zingers? I've read a lot of posts discussing what dems can do. In response to my own query as well.


Your post is what the Spanish call confirmation bias.

Edit:

There isn't much constructive you can do with the significant amount of racists. You can focus on turnout, which has been the conclusion since the loss.

 

[titiklabingapat]

This is what, the third or fourth major study on the election that came down with the same conclusion?

But how them economic anxiety tho

*barf*

 

[GurgleBot20]

So many zingers in this thread.
Absolutely no constructive comments.

Guess it was soley racism guys, absolutely nothing that could have been done.
It's almost like Democrats have been hemorrhaging voters at every level of government, local and federal for the past eight years.

Was this election fueled significantly by racism, yes.
But Democrats are pathetic losers.
Nanci Peloci can't even string together two coherent words of a plan to regain voters.

I don't know why people keep talking like we're a forum of Democratic strategists.

 

[Platinumstorm]

I do not think abandoning civil rights issues for "economic" issues is a great long term strategy, nor do I think pointing this out makes me in support of party purity. For instance, I wish liberals would drop the gun stuff

I'm not calling for an abandonment of civil rights issues, but if you can make black economic equality, which is an economic and civil rights issue, part of an overall package which also improves non-black economic justice, then that's a good step forward for everyone.

Nowhere should we allow the core tenet of civil rights for Democrats to be changed by broadening our tent. We can change how we deliver our message without changing the message.

I also am someone who thinks the gun issue needs to go away. There are incredibly few demographics that haven't been hit with mass shootings, and we weren't able to create even the smallest background check changes, despite all of the political capital built up for it. It's a toxic issue that just ends up ostracizing voters, particularly in states that Democrats need the gains in.

 

[JC Lately]

Well, the first step is admitting the problem.

Now what?

 

[cdyhybrid]

I'm not calling for an abandonment of civil rights issues, but if you can make black economic equality, which is an economic and civil rights issue, part of an overall package which also improves non-black economic justice, then that's a good step forward for everyone.

Nowhere should we allow the core tenet of civil rights for Democrats to be changed by broadening our tent. We can change how we deliver our message without changing the message.

I also am someone who thinks the gun issue needs to go away. There are incredibly few demographics that haven't been hit with mass shootings, and we weren't able to create even the smallest background check changes, despite all of the political capital built up for it. It's a toxic issue that just ends up ostracizing voters, particularly in states that Democrats need the gains in.

Economic equality is economic equality.

Poor white people have far more in common in terms of interests with poor minorities than they do with rich white people. Dem policies are more beneficial for poor and working class white people because they are better for all poor and working class white people.

Wanna guess why they don't go for it?

 

[Rayis]

The deplorable moniker was appropriate, despite it being a bad political move.

 

[Inuhanyou]

social and poor economic disparity bolstered racist attitudes, its nothing new for the southern strategy types.

However, anyone who would dismiss the Democrats corporate attitudes as a big reason for Trump to depress the firewall in the rust belt clearly affected the areas he won who voted for Obama in record number.

Its a big danger to simply dismiss Hillary or the Dem opposition as racists, its completely not taking into account the mistakes of the Democrats and what they should be doing

 

[Fenderputty]

I'm not calling for an abandonment of civil rights issues, but if you can make black economic equality, which is an economic and civil rights issue, part of an overall package which also improves non-black economic justice, then that's a good step forward for everyone.

Nowhere should we allow the core tenet of civil rights for Democrats to be changed by broadening our tent. We can change how we deliver our message without changing the message.

I agree here, but I think this is more challenging than what your characterization of the issue would imply. For instance, we know white Trump voters were upset that minorities might have got more subsidies under the ACA than they did. These people voted for its destruction even though the ACA benefitted them exonomicallly and they did so because of racist motivations.

 

[commedieu]

I'm not calling for an abandonment of civil rights issues, but if you can make black economic equality, which is an economic and civil rights issue, part of an overall package which also improves non-black economic justice, then that's a good step forward for everyone.

Nowhere should we allow the core tenet of civil rights for Democrats to be changed by broadening our tent. We can change how we deliver our message without changing the message.

I also am someone who thinks the gun issue needs to go away. There are incredibly few demographics that haven't been hit with mass shootings, and we weren't able to create even the smallest background check changes, despite all of the political capital built up for it. It's a toxic issue that just ends up ostracizing voters, particularly in states that Democrats need the gains in.

The economy wasnt advertised as for minorities only. Hillary laid out a plan for education for everyone. Health care for all. And specifically a plan to get coal and dying towns into modern times. On top of that, the plight of minorities was mentioned. (Not even enough to get them out to vote in droves.)

That last bit, is what ruined it for the racists(who are totally not racist). Because they are racist.

I'm leaning towards they can get fucked, and focus on the turnout. Trump didn't win by a large margin. If no one wants less shootings and better health care, oh well. Let the popular vote people decide the future of the nation.

If they are sold on a bigot because he says fuck minorities, theyre stealing everything, specifically, and surrounds himself with support of white supremacists, well? Let them enjoy their purchase.

How much more can you say than "this is for all of us!" "And I mean white people too!!"?

 

[crackhead_bob]

Just don't call them deplorable

Just that one simple word gets conservatives all riled up.

 

[Arkage]

This commentary really seems like a hot load of garbage. And that's ignoring that fact that the OP is highly misleading in the title when the actual article is "Racism motivated Trump voters more than authoritarianism."

For example the "Symbolic Racism Indicators" (??) are basically asking the question of "do you believe systemic racism can ruin or bias free market capitalism?" and, if the person answers no, they are therefore racist. Is this really the definition a study should use to determine if a voter is racially motivated in their Presidential choices? I know conservatives who think capitalism is some unblemished beacon that can't possible be corrupted. This is more tied into their beliefs about the "purity" of free capitalistic markets than it is their beliefs on race. I find these questions a pretty damn high, and murky, bar to set for people to pass in order to not be labelled as "racist" or "racially motivated."

The questions also use phrases like giving blacks "special favors." It's literally trying to trigger white Republicans with some of this framing, which likely ends up biasing the entire study itself.

And more fundamentally, even if true, the study doesn't say Trump voters picked him due to racist beliefs, it says they were more correlated to the Symbolic Racism survey than the authoritarianism survey. But who was claiming Trump voters were motivated by authoritarianism in the first place? The commentator is creating his own strawman argument to knock down.

The motivation was an outsider who hated how Washington was run. And oddly enough, the study brings up in the beginning how being low-income (and thus finding Trump's economic message appealing) was a big, unusual factor in Trump's vote. But then the commentator proceeds to forget they ever talked about it in their final analysis paragraph of "which of these (factors) had the biggest influence?"

This is bad data.

 

[Platinumstorm]

Economic equality is economic equality.

Poor white people have far more in common in terms of interests with poor minorities than they do with rich white people. Dem policies are more beneficial for poor and working class white people because they are better for all poor and working class white people.

Wanna guess why they don't go for it?

Yeah, there's a reason I chose the word xenophobia before racism in my first post in this thread. Xenophobia and racism have a lot of overlapping areas. I think the idea of populism and anti-globalism, which I think is a misconstructed anti-plutocratic agenda is more xenophobic than racist. "They took our jobs." from the Bush years falls into this line too.

Who are they? Well they're not sure. But they know they're not like those who were having that thought together. That's what makes it xenophobic.

 

[Spinluck]

Haven't we had multiple studies come to this conclusion?

*Reads OP again*

Yup, nothing that surprises me.

 

[Platinumstorm]

This commentary really seems like a hot load of garbage. And that's ignoring that fact that the OP is highly misleading in the title when the actual article is "Racism motivated Trump voters more than authoritarianism."

For example the "Symbolic Racism Indicators" (??) are basically asking the question of "do you believe systemic racism can ruin or bias free market capitalism?" and, if the person answers no, they are therefore racist. Is this really the definition a study should use to determine if a voter is racially motivated in their Presidential choices? I know conservatives who think capitalism is some unblemished beacon that can't possible be corrupted. This is more tied into their beliefs about the "purity" of free capitalistic markets than it is their beliefs on race. I find these questions a pretty damn high, and murky, bar to set for people to pass in order to not be labelled as "racist" or "racially motivated."

The questions also use phrases like giving blacks "special favors." It's literally trying to trigger white Republicans with some of this framing, which likely ends up biasing the entire study itself.

And more fundamentally, even if true, the study doesn't say Trump voters picked him due to racist beliefs, it says they were more correlated to the Symbolic Racism survey than the authoritarianism survey. But who was claiming Trump voters were motivated by authoritarianism in the first place? The commentator is creating his own strawman argument to knock down.

The motivation was an outsider who hated how Washington was run. And oddly enough, the study brings up in the beginning how being low-income (and thus finding Trump's economic message appealing) was a big, unusual factor in Trump's vote. But then the commentator proceeds to forget they ever talked about it in their final analysis paragraph of "which of these (factors) had the biggest influence?"

This is bad data.

Getting even more specific it's white voters, rather than Trump voters, or Republican voters.

 

[Suikoguy]

This commentary really seems like a hot load of garbage. And that's ignoring that fact that the OP is highly misleading in the title when the actual article is "Racism motivated Trump voters more than authoritarianism."

For example the "Symbolic Racism Indicators" (??) are basically asking the question of "do you believe systemic racism can ruin or bias free market capitalism?" and, if the person answers no, they are therefore racist. Is this really the definition a study should use to determine if a voter is racially motivated in their Presidential choices? I know conservatives who think capitalism is some unblemished beacon that can't possible be corrupted. This is more tied into their beliefs about the "purity" of free capitalistic markets than it is their beliefs on race. I find these questions a pretty damn high, and murky, bar to set for people to pass in order to not be labelled as "racist" or "racially motivated."

The questions also use phrases like giving blacks "special favors." It's literally trying to trigger white Republicans with some of this framing, which likely ends up biasing the entire study itself.

And more fundamentally, even if true, the study doesn't say Trump voters picked him due to racist beliefs, it says they were more correlated to the Symbolic Racism survey than the authoritarianism survey. But who was claiming Trump voters were motivated by authoritarianism in the first place? The commentator is creating his own strawman argument to knock down.

The motivation was an outsider who hated how Washington was run. And oddly enough, the study brings up in the beginning how being low-income (and thus finding Trump's economic message appealing) was a big, unusual factor in Trump's vote. But then the commentator proceeds to forget they ever talked about it in their final analysis paragraph of "which of these (factors) had the biggest influence?"

This is bad data.

It's not the only study:

https://www.thenation.com/article/fear-of-diversity-made-people-more-likely-to-vote-trump/

 

[Strike]

 

[DrForester]

 

[NastyBook]

 

[kirblar]

This commentary really seems like a hot load of garbage. And that's ignoring that fact that the OP is highly misleading in the title when the actual article is "Racism motivated Trump voters more than authoritarianism."

For example the "Symbolic Racism Indicators" (??) are basically asking the question of "do you believe systemic racism can ruin or bias free market capitalism?" and, if the person answers no, they are therefore racist. Is this really the definition a study should use to determine if a voter is racially motivated in their Presidential choices? I know conservatives who think capitalism is some unblemished beacon that can't possible be corrupted. This is more tied into their beliefs about the "purity" of free capitalistic markets than it is their beliefs on race. I find these questions a pretty damn high, and murky, bar to set for people to pass in order to not be labelled as "racist" or "racially motivated."

The questions also use phrases like giving blacks "special favors." It's literally trying to trigger white Republicans with some of this framing, which likely ends up biasing the entire study itself.

And more fundamentally, even if true, the study doesn't say Trump voters picked him due to racist beliefs, it says they were more correlated to the Symbolic Racism survey than the authoritarianism survey. But who was claiming Trump voters were motivated by authoritarianism in the first place? The commentator is creating his own strawman argument to knock down.

The motivation was an outsider who hated how Washington was run. And oddly enough, the study brings up in the beginning how being low-income (and thus finding Trump's economic message appealing) was a big, unusual factor in Trump's vote. But then the commentator proceeds to forget they ever talked about it in their final analysis paragraph of "which of these (factors) had the biggest influence?"

This is bad data.

Yes, White Republican Voters are getting "triggered" by this sorts of language.

This is why they're voting Republican.

 

[FZZ]

Hey man minorities knew

we tried to unite but White America gonna White America

 

[thepotatoman]

I don't know why people keep talking like we're a forum of Democratic strategists.

Largely because strategic voting is a ginormous part of US democracy. Every voter is basically asked to be a strategist in the primary.

And there's not enough disagreement about anything but strategy here, and discussions tend to gravitate to where there are disagreements.

 

[Cipherr]

So many zingers in this thread.
Absolutely no constructive comments.

Guess it was soley racism guys, absolutely nothing that could have been done.
It's almost like Democrats have been hemorrhaging voters at every level of government, local and federal for the past eight years.

Was this election fueled significantly by racism, yes.
But Democrats are pathetic losers.
Nanci Peloci can't even string together two coherent words of a plan to regain voters.

So wait. Shit on everyone in the thread. But them end up having to agree with everyone in the thread despite this because the evidence supports what everyone in the thread is saying.

Then step back all holier than thou and lob insults at the Democratic party in a thread that illuminates the disgusting and inexcusable motivations of many conservatives voters? Doing your best Bernie impression or what? Get out of here with this nonsense.

Haven't we had multiple studies come to this conclusion?

Yep. We keep adding them to the pile though, because people still try and claim otherwise.

 

[Prof. Bathtub]

The deplorable moniker was appropriate, despite it being a bad political move.

Nice how so many of her criticisms were scrutinized by the media as being baseless or having gone too far. Statements like:

The morality of a percent of the supporters was questionable (i.e, supporters of a person who suggested the murder of his opponent.)

His bold Populist economic policies were just Reaganomics with his brand slapped on.

The core of his most vocal proponents were essentially harassers and Nazis.

A lazy, easily provoked personality such as his was not to be trusted with a vast arsenal.

His ties to Russia made his priorities and allegiances heavily suspect.

She was so untrustworthy though. Everything she said was a lie!

 

[Version 3.0]

And? Where do we go from here? No one is going to admit anything. So that leaves us with Democrats needing to get their votes.

Is it possible or do we have to just invest time into getting more Democrats to vote?

There is no progress possible with the Republican party as it currently exists. Or compromise, which they have proven isn't possible.

What did Obama do, that Hillary failed at mostly. It was the turnout. But the dems dropped the ball severely there assuming a w.

Democrats need to turn out young people. Which will happen eventually: they'll stop being young, and more of them will vote. They don't need to, and probably can't, and probably shouldn't, get any of these racist votes.

 

[DrForester]

Nice how so many of her criticisms were scrutinized by the media as being baseless or having gone too far. Statements like:

Media playing the horse race game didn't hlep.

Clinton: "Trump is supported by racists, and here are a bunch of reasons why I say that..."

Trump: "Nuh uh, she's the racist"



Media: "This election is getting very negative on both sides..."

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

You live in reality, you actually deal with these people every day, you already knew this.

 

[kirblar]

You live in reality, you actually deal with these people every day, you already knew this.

A lot of white are in denial because they don't want to admit what the people they live/work with actually are.

 

[SilentRacoon]

Racial anxiety.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

A lot of white are in denial because they don't want to admit what the people they live/work with actually are.

Absolutely. I have no qualms doing so, never have. I know the folks (some family) that suddenly got super excited about politics (for the first time, or first time in years) when he came out of the gate talking about Mexican rapists. I even knew some Obama voters that perked up again. I never had any doubt it happened all over the country in certain areas.

It was just never never a question to me of what was driving all that insane fervor. I'm not gonna say all of his voters and does go deeper than race, but if you lie down with dogs...

 

[Captin Quacker]

In other news, water is wet.

that's only because we can touch it

if we couldn't touch it, it'd be dry

 

[Chmpocalypse]

trump voters being racist, sexist morons is not surprising.

 

[Jenov]

Racism was pretty obviously a huge component of the election, even though many people tried to deny. Just look at the surge of all the fucking neo nazis and bigots proudly gathering and doing Heil Hitler poses everywhere now. It's sickening. Fuck these people.

Interesting that data showed that wealthy people actually didn't like trump, and more poor people did. I want to say that's a division of education levels. Only fucking morons voted for Trump.

 

[ForsakenLotus]

There is no denying racism played a role, but it's a mistake to try to boil something as complicated as why Donald Trump won the election on one single issue - not that I think this data is trying to do that. Just in general, there are a lot of factors and I think some people just like to say, "Racism, duh," and leave it at that.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Racism was pretty obviously a huge component of the election, even though many people tried to deny. Just look at the surge of all the fucking neo nazis and bigots proudly gathering and doing Heil Hitler poses everywhere now. It's sickening. Fuck these people.

Interesting that data showed that wealthy people actually didn't like trump, and more poor people did. I want to say that's a division of education levels. Only fucking morons voted for Trump.

He sure as shit isn't winning Florida without those types.

 

[Not]

Only fucking morons voted for Trump.

I want to disagree with this. It's more complex than that.

There are otherwise intellectually proficient people who still rely on feelings and familiarity more than anything that may cause them pain or uncertainty.