"Will you shut up, man?" US Politics October 2020

yeah it's a cool feature, but definitely dont' try the opposite, like flipping FL to Trump

somehow i ended up in the 3 out of 100 simulation last time tho...

Regarding Texas Latinos, this article was a p decent read:

https://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/dont-call-texas-latino-voters-sleeping-giant/

I was curious, so I drove by my local polling place today. When I dropped off my ballot a week ago there was a huge line, hundreds of people long, for in-person voting (and even a small one for me). That was right after the polls first opened on the first day, around 10am or so. It was around 2:30 when I just swung by now, and while the line isn't nearly as long, there is still a line out the door and down to the street, which is pretty impressive. That's after a full week of available early in-person voting.

Re some comments above about why non-college educated young men don't go Democrat by a large margin.... it's the usual answer, but I don't think it would be wrong to cite the absolute decimation of unions and union jobs in the United States. Of course unions aren't wholly Dem or leftist orgs, that's obvious, but it has something to do with it, I think.

I wonder if there are some people who just like voting for whoever is currently in charge without thinking about it too much

I think the lazy stereotyping is the idea that Latino voters "should" be Democrats.

I can go on and on about this.

Growing up as a Cuban in this town -- always a liberal in a conservative milieu -- I don't understand the assumption that Latino men must be liberal when up-from-the-bootstraps still exerts such a powerful hold on the ambitions of these men.

this article really delves into why people don't always vote, thought it was interesting: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/non-voters-poll-2020-election/

Perhaps because I didn't experience a large Latino presence in my surroundings until I was 22 or so, I made what I would say is a safe assumption that Latinos wouldn't support obvious racist assholes who want to kill them, but obviously I was wrong.

Not trying to be snarky, just explaining, btw.

I obviously understand what you're saying, Alfred. I just don't really 'get it,' iykwim. Why would people vote for someone who actively hates them?

when up-from-the-bootstraps still exerts such a powerful hold on the ambitions of these men.

It's been a very long time since I last noted here that originally "pulling oneself up by the bootstraps" was coined as a comically ridiculous idea because it described a physical impossibility. It still does, but somehow for millions of conservatives it has become the perfect description of achieving success in America. Ironic, eh?

Isn't the question at hand why Trump has GAINED Latino support since 2016, rather than why would any Latino vote for a conservative?

also it seems to me that trump is such a unique figure in politics that it may be risky to assume support for trump = general support for conservatives

Why would people vote for someone who actively hates them?

That's not these Cuban men (and many women) look at the situation. They don't see the hate -- they see people on the same side, united by hating the shiftless and the weak.

Isn't the question at hand why Trump has GAINED Latino support since 2016, rather than why would any Latino vote for a conservative?

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger),

"Latino" is too broad a brush. You have to look at discrete needs: Venezuelans aren't Puerto Ricans who aren't Nicaraguans.

I wrote a little about it, and there's this solid NYT story.

Right but that's the stat that was brought up wasn't it? If ppl can speak of "suburban women" as a monolith voting block then why not Latinos? I'm all for arguing that neither of those groups shouldn be viewed as a monolithic block.
Or are you just saying there are a multitude of reasons why his support grew, at least one for each subgroup of Latinos? That's a helpful answer, but doesn't negate the question being asked.

If you want to transition out of a hated group, you gotta start walkin' the haters' walk.

"soccer mom" is one of the most objectionable of recent bits of political jargon

better than "security moms"

honestly, "demographic analysis" just leads to extreme generalizations that cause everyone to hate everyone

and distorts everything too. like, urban/rural has always been a better indicator of voting trends than "red states" and "blue states," or "the coasts" and "the heartland"

keith urban vs. keith rural

There are two semi-monolithic blocs of American voters - white evangelicals and African-Americans.

We still talk about other groups and demographics - and how to appeal to them and win their votes. That you can't 'win the Latino vote' purely through playing identity cards doesn't mean there's not a Latino vote to talk about. In most of the country, Latino voters do have a lot in common on socioeconomic grounds.

Nate Silver or someone at 538 had a small piece about how there is no actual real-world support for 'economically conservative, socially liberal,' but there is for the opposite. If you fall into that group (as a working-class young man might - or a Catholic), if the Democrats aren't offering you improved economic circumstances and you aren't completely sold on their socially liberal politics, why would you be expected to default into their camp?

"suburban women"/"soccer mom" are just euphemisms for white women, no?

a small piece about how there is no actual real-world support for 'economically conservative, socially liberal,'

stop making Bill Weld cry

"suburban women"/"soccer mom" are just euphemisms for white women, no?

no -- it means white women with college degrees which is decidedly not the same thing

and soccer-playing kids

they care a lot about the cost of imported fruit because they need to bring orange slices to practice once per season

single issue voters on this

There are two semi-monolithic blocs of American voters - white evangelicals and African-Americans.

If we're going to separate out the white evangelicals from other evangelicals, I think we can separate out the non-Orthodox Jews from other Jews, and I gotta believe we are close to as politically monolithic as the other two groups -- not just in partisan preference, I feel like I could walk into a conservative or reform shul anywhere coast to coast and pretty much get the same narrow band of political takes.

non-orthodox jews include both republicans and democrats, come on

can i just say that i keep waiting for Morbs to show up here and start talking shit and it's making me a bit sad that it's not happening

I didn't realize it until you said it but yeah

yes.

re trump being a “tough guy”.. i have no doubt he has watched goons kick the shit out of people who crossed his dad, and later him. so he thinks he’s tough by proxy, and in a way it’s even better, since he doesn’t have to get mussed himself

Donald Trump’s debt totals at least $1.1bn. Should he win re-election, about $900m of it will come due during his second term https://t.co/nxwa0GhbtN pic.twitter.com/EK9MiVUiAn

— Financial Times (@FinancialTimes) October 26, 2020

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O05mMuDvnLc

(nearly 6k posts in under a month btw)

"suburban women"/"soccer mom" are just euphemisms for white women, no?

no -- it means white women with college degrees which is decidedly not the same thing

No again. It means MARRIED white women.

Single white women skew Democratic.

Married white women skew Republican.

Ban straight marriage

Upper-middle class married white women*

old grey mare she ain't what she used to be

I know this is a bullshit outsider perspective but it seems to me that systemic racism is enabled/perpetuated by America’s fascination with race-based differences in politics, voting intentions etc. Like virtually half of US political discourse/polling involves thinking of people’s decision making as if it was determined by race.
I get that the reason is that people in different racial groups are differently affected by policies, but the continual message is that race determines thinking. Which seems like a driver to me.

We have two political parties and one has made white supremacy their core value for 50 years. (And the other one courted the white supremacists before that.)

It’s an unavoidable part of voting calculations and “what’s the matter with Kansas”-style questions of why someone who would theoretically be harmed by white supremacy would vote against their interests.

The 'soccer mom' imagery was supposed to conjure up a suburban mother of school aged children with enough spare time and devotion to her kids to constantly drive them to their after-school soccer practice and games.

Because soccer skews heavily white, that inference was def intended. Because children + spare time to drive them around skews heavily toward middle class and married, those inferences were intended. Because kids of school age tends heavily toward the 29 -45 age bracket, that inference was def intended, too. Add all those together and there will be a noticeable skewing toward college education, but not as definite as the other demographics.

Lastly, because several of these factors tend to offset one another in terms of skewing toward liberalism vs. conservatism, the 'soccer mom' imagery was supposed to be the very model of the wavering centrist each party wants to capture. It's just an accurate reflection of how marketing people are taught to think. Hard to say how accurate it is, politically, but the idea sure got sold to candidates and pundits very effectively.

i know i'm probably imagining this, but mcconnell sounds old as hell right now

maybe he'll pull a Pontypool and just die in the Senate chamber while repeating the same unremarkable word over and over again

"cloture....cloture....cloture....cl-cl-cloture..."

god he's being such an assfuckstain

his hand doesn't look discolored anymore :(

when he said "the democrats pioneered it", referring to the filibuster, i automatically said "but you perfected it", and was kind of surprised when he didn't say it with me