Juno is a top notch neutrino observatory (LC Thread)
06-04-2017
, 04:27 AM
Quote:
My serious advice to you and maybe suzzer is to just get out of LA. I'm a big fan of urban life in general, but I really don't think cities are healthy places at that scale. Find a smaller city in a sanely governed state and live modestly. That's probably about the best life most of us can reasonably achieve.
Oh come on, there's lots of nice places. Like Clearwater Florida, have you ever been there? As an aside, do you ever feel like you're just in a slum, or just not your best? Maybe some things in your life just aren't right? If so, there's lots of really wonderful people in Clearwater that can help you!
Last edited by AllCowsEatGrass; 06-04-2017 at 04:27 AM.
Reason: Do you happen to like science fiction?
06-04-2017
, 04:36 AM
06-04-2017
, 04:58 AM
06-04-2017
, 05:01 AM
Quote:
Oh come on, there's lots of nice places. Like Clearwater Florida, have you ever been there? As an aside, do you ever feel like you're just in a slum, or just not your best? Maybe some things in your life just aren't right? If so, there's lots of really wonderful people in Clearwater that can help you!
06-04-2017
, 05:18 AM
Quote:
Political geography is a thing and ldo goes beyond red state/blue state or North and South. There are surely some rare exceptions but ~15 miles outside of any American city with > 500k people is pretty Trumpy everywhere.
Once you cross the threshold past the ~50th largest cities in the country, you can even find some Trumpy cities, particularly in the Rust Belt like Fort Wayne and Erie and Wheeling along with more predictable places like Amarillo and Birmingham AL. But it was the former (the Rust Belt cities with populations between 50k - 200k) that saw decent flips from Obama --> Trump which were ultimately the difference between winning and losing. It was one of the stories the media sort of got right in the lead-up to the election was to do those "fly a reporter into Youngstown or Montgomery County Ohio and talk to aggrieved whites" since the GOP has always done well with exurban and rural voters in America's hinterland but it was the medium size rust belt towns are where Trump actually flipped people or animated turnout the GOP wasn't formerly getting. That was basically Ground Zero for Trump, the places that are literally 'Trumpy' instead of simply perpetually on lockdown for the GOP.
Once you cross the threshold past the ~50th largest cities in the country, you can even find some Trumpy cities, particularly in the Rust Belt like Fort Wayne and Erie and Wheeling along with more predictable places like Amarillo and Birmingham AL. But it was the former (the Rust Belt cities with populations between 50k - 200k) that saw decent flips from Obama --> Trump which were ultimately the difference between winning and losing. It was one of the stories the media sort of got right in the lead-up to the election was to do those "fly a reporter into Youngstown or Montgomery County Ohio and talk to aggrieved whites" since the GOP has always done well with exurban and rural voters in America's hinterland but it was the medium size rust belt towns are where Trump actually flipped people or animated turnout the GOP wasn't formerly getting. That was basically Ground Zero for Trump, the places that are literally 'Trumpy' instead of simply perpetually on lockdown for the GOP.
But the economically anxious part is your interpretation, not mine. I do think economic anxiety, or more correctly, a certain sense of hopelessness and isolation was real which was partly economic nature -- that feeling is real enough in the Rust Belt but probably overstated by popular media.
What I think was understated by the media was the way racial resentment and migration and long-term trends and settlement patterns in the US were also explanatory (political geography!). Like it's really hard to understand anything about the Rust Belt *without* understanding yes, the history of trade and economics and industry in the region, but ALSO migration. Specifically the early 20th century phenomenon of blacks migrating out of the South and into northern and midwestern cities, and the resultant white flight out of them, followed later by the gentrification of the American city and large amounts of wealth pouring back into cities and a wholly different set of economic priorities (services, tech, knowledge) becoming dominant, and that whole story -- of trade, of progress, of migration has created a very specific context of white anxiety and social isolation that allowed a nascent fascist movement to thrive in very specific places.
I wrote about this last month:
Quote:
RE: Canadian country club not full of Trumpkins despite being mostly old whites, a few explanations come to mind
1. country club set in US not exactly Trump's core supporters either
2. better social safety net, less wealth disparity, better social and civic services, better labor protections, cleaner environment, less fealty to hyper competitive economic schemes leave population not in constant state of anxiety
3. circumstances of political geography unique to US (high levels of forced migration of Africans in the 17th-18th centuries as slaved, followed later by migration of blacks off of Southern plantations into cities coupled with white American flight out of them and American leadership kowtowing to white flight sympathies later in the 20th century with racist zoning and huge infrastructure projects that promoted segregation and hindered integration).
Trump's supporters in the primaries:
Increases in support for Trump relative to Romney:
I've belabored this point in the past but you can't understand Trump without understand the unique facets of America's political geography. Knowing where Trump had 1) significant levels of support in the GOP primaries (e.g., the south) and consequently where all of his dependable voters were (the south) and where all of the Obama --> Trump vote flippers were (suburban and exurban and rural midwest) points to the ultimate answer to this question about what is unique and different about the US. Fox News and Breitbart are everywhere but some places responded very favorably to Trump and others less so.
The places that responded very and uniquely favorably to Trump and/or proved very dependable:
1. the south
2. all the places where white flight types fled to during and after the Great Migration (e.g., when blacks fled the south en masse during the Jim Crow era), a migration phenomenon very specific to the north and industrial midwest in the US and less a phenomenon in the prairie states, southwest and west
Think you have to look at those factors and appreciate how if race and migration was a huge part of the explanation of Trump and uniquely American.
The rank Murdochian style propaganda machine of contemporary America is likely an effect of #2 and #3 rather than causative since aggressively racist idiots predate Fox News by centuries.
1. country club set in US not exactly Trump's core supporters either
2. better social safety net, less wealth disparity, better social and civic services, better labor protections, cleaner environment, less fealty to hyper competitive economic schemes leave population not in constant state of anxiety
3. circumstances of political geography unique to US (high levels of forced migration of Africans in the 17th-18th centuries as slaved, followed later by migration of blacks off of Southern plantations into cities coupled with white American flight out of them and American leadership kowtowing to white flight sympathies later in the 20th century with racist zoning and huge infrastructure projects that promoted segregation and hindered integration).
Trump's supporters in the primaries:
Increases in support for Trump relative to Romney:
I've belabored this point in the past but you can't understand Trump without understand the unique facets of America's political geography. Knowing where Trump had 1) significant levels of support in the GOP primaries (e.g., the south) and consequently where all of his dependable voters were (the south) and where all of the Obama --> Trump vote flippers were (suburban and exurban and rural midwest) points to the ultimate answer to this question about what is unique and different about the US. Fox News and Breitbart are everywhere but some places responded very favorably to Trump and others less so.
The places that responded very and uniquely favorably to Trump and/or proved very dependable:
1. the south
2. all the places where white flight types fled to during and after the Great Migration (e.g., when blacks fled the south en masse during the Jim Crow era), a migration phenomenon very specific to the north and industrial midwest in the US and less a phenomenon in the prairie states, southwest and west
Think you have to look at those factors and appreciate how if race and migration was a huge part of the explanation of Trump and uniquely American.
The rank Murdochian style propaganda machine of contemporary America is likely an effect of #2 and #3 rather than causative since aggressively racist idiots predate Fox News by centuries.
06-04-2017
, 05:44 AM
Quote:
The rust-belters happened to be the swing votes in 2016. But the real difference that no one counted on was the 60 million people who reliably vote Republican for any conceivable candidate - no matter how terrible.
This is why everyone was laughing at Trump. Both sides of the aisle believed that the (R) candidate couldn't just scoop booty by spewing a bunch of ridiculous racist garbage in the primaries - w/o having to answer for it in the general. The collective wisdom was that moderate Republicans would be repulsed.
Oops.
This is why everyone was laughing at Trump. Both sides of the aisle believed that the (R) candidate couldn't just scoop booty by spewing a bunch of ridiculous racist garbage in the primaries - w/o having to answer for it in the general. The collective wisdom was that moderate Republicans would be repulsed.
Oops.
The answer imo is in my last post. Where did Trump get the primary support that built to his nomination?: the south, Appalachia, the industrial midwest. Read: racist whites.
Where did he flip votes or turnout more voters than Romney?: not the south or other traditional GOP strongholds. As you know, general elections are something of a fait accompli. The (R) candidate is guaranteed a huge floor. But where did he flip votes?
My MS Paint skills are garbage but this is the best I can do in 120 seconds. Obviously not you know like exactly accurate but you know, it's a meta point. The arrows are migration patterns of the 20th century:
He got votes where white people fled to when black people migrated north. Suburbia, exurbia, one-horse industry towns across the midwest built largely during the middle part of the 20th century.
So we go back to the point: is that *economic* anxiety? Those places are largely hot garbage right now, mostly just an assortment of meth addicts, opiate addicts and Walmarts. So, well, kinda economic anxiety? But there's NO WAY to tell the story in an accurate and meaningful way without diving into the history of migration and racial anxiety like 100 years in the making.
06-04-2017
, 06:25 AM
Quote:
Sure, sure. But then why *Trump* and not Ted Cruz or Rubio or Kasich or whoever? Why a buffoon noted most for stoking white racial animus?
The answer imo is in my last post. Where did Trump get the primary support that built to his nomination?: the south, Appalachia, the industrial midwest. Read: racist whites.
Where did he flip votes or turnout more voters than Romney?: not the south or other traditional GOP strongholds. As you know, general elections are something of a fait accompli. The (R) candidate is guaranteed a huge floor. But where did he flip votes?
My MS Paint skills are garbage but this is the best I can do in 120 seconds. Obviously not you know like exactly accurate but you know, it's a meta point. The arrows are migration patterns of the 20th century:
He got votes where white people fled to when black people migrated north. Suburbia, exurbia, one-horse industry towns across the midwest built largely during the middle part of the 20th century.
So we go back to the point: is that *economic* anxiety? Those places are largely hot garbage right now, mostly just an assortment of meth addicts, opiate addicts and Walmarts. So, well, kinda economic anxiety? But there's NO WAY to tell the story in an accurate and meaningful way without diving into the history of migration and racial anxiety like 100 years in the making.
The answer imo is in my last post. Where did Trump get the primary support that built to his nomination?: the south, Appalachia, the industrial midwest. Read: racist whites.
Where did he flip votes or turnout more voters than Romney?: not the south or other traditional GOP strongholds. As you know, general elections are something of a fait accompli. The (R) candidate is guaranteed a huge floor. But where did he flip votes?
My MS Paint skills are garbage but this is the best I can do in 120 seconds. Obviously not you know like exactly accurate but you know, it's a meta point. The arrows are migration patterns of the 20th century:
He got votes where white people fled to when black people migrated north. Suburbia, exurbia, one-horse industry towns across the midwest built largely during the middle part of the 20th century.
So we go back to the point: is that *economic* anxiety? Those places are largely hot garbage right now, mostly just an assortment of meth addicts, opiate addicts and Walmarts. So, well, kinda economic anxiety? But there's NO WAY to tell the story in an accurate and meaningful way without diving into the history of migration and racial anxiety like 100 years in the making.
As a Brit trying to read this correctly with limited knowledge, in addition to Trump gaining votes where white people moved to, it looks as though he also gained votes where black people moved to (presumably because a lot of the remaining white Dems there switched to Repubs as a protest vote, plus some of the new black arrivals might be more in favour of Repubs than previously).
Deserves a thread of its own.
EDIT: I believe on a more micro scale a similar shift may have happened with the post War white population of the East End of London, traditional left voters, who largely moved further East out of London altogether and into Essex and became vociferously right wing following immigration by people from Pakistan and Bangladesh into the East End.
Last edited by jalfrezi; 06-04-2017 at 06:35 AM.
Reason: Added sentence
06-04-2017
, 07:24 AM
I've lived my whole life in the driftless area
Obama crushed here x2, Kerry won here, Gore won, Clinton won x2. If you look at electoral maps it's that chunk of blue that's always in the middle of the sea of red between Chicago and like, the west coast and it's pretty weird that there's no big cities or real union-y influence.
I think part of the reason Obama did well here is that he actually visited the area multiple times. I saw Obama in La Crosse, Wisconsin, a city of 50k, twice. Clinton never set foot in the area, or even Wisconsin, once. Geniuses running that campaign. That's basically the area that Clinton should have been targeting, to counteract the topographically-challenged hick parts of those states. Instead she ignored the strategic area, lost Wisconsin, lost Iowa, and almost lost friggin Minnesota (the ONLY state that Reagan didn't win in 84).
Obama crushed here x2, Kerry won here, Gore won, Clinton won x2. If you look at electoral maps it's that chunk of blue that's always in the middle of the sea of red between Chicago and like, the west coast and it's pretty weird that there's no big cities or real union-y influence.
I think part of the reason Obama did well here is that he actually visited the area multiple times. I saw Obama in La Crosse, Wisconsin, a city of 50k, twice. Clinton never set foot in the area, or even Wisconsin, once. Geniuses running that campaign. That's basically the area that Clinton should have been targeting, to counteract the topographically-challenged hick parts of those states. Instead she ignored the strategic area, lost Wisconsin, lost Iowa, and almost lost friggin Minnesota (the ONLY state that Reagan didn't win in 84).
06-04-2017
, 08:07 AM
06-04-2017
, 08:11 AM
