i was discussing whether labeling trump voters "deplorable" (by people that consider themselves as part of a "polite society" in general not just in original instance when hillary said) is consistent with a concept of "polite society"

Ignoring that to arrive at the above the respondent is asked to say one word. One.

This is just a massive pivot though.

You start off acknowledging that bad economic conditions can lead to irrational emotional agency in politics, this is why the whole economy is good employment 5% line is trotted out.

When someone points out, with reference to some fairly robust metrics, that economy is not so good, instead of going back to defending the economy against those metrics, which would be very hard, we pivot onto but they did not mention it, they just racists.

As I have pointed out now numerous times from an economic deterministic point of view, that they did not mention it is pretty moot, ideology and false consciousness got that very well covered.

Notice however that Change is pretty big on that word chart.

Key to Neo Liberalism is the idea that Government should get out of the way and just not change much ideally nothing.

Its this that disenfranchises the voter away from mainstream narratives and makes him/her look for narratives of a Leader with actual agency to change things in their lives. In that light that word pie for Trump makes perfect sense.

I guess the above is better than your original graf, which told us that a individual who broke every received wisdom held by intelligent people and the political class itself was elected because people associated SPEECH with him.

Nothing. I agree Democrats offer them basically nothing. I agree if you're a white guy with a decent job or more, unless you're into identity politics that run counter to your own identity -- the Democrats don't offer you much.

5ive,

Try and keep up here. The Gallup poll is unlikely to be all white people. DUCY?

Please go back from wherever you came from. Your posting is God awful.

Thx

2 things:

1. 2 weeks in and it's even more confusing as to the positive v normative discussion, coupled with How Win Election by 2p2 v How Retain Dignity by 2p2, plus a subset of what downtrodden whites care about v what they should care about, such that people are accidentally talking past each other. Not so much with you and OAFK but a bit. There should probably be 2 separate threads.

2. Bill did the nafta and all the bad things. 3 branches of government is a liberal MSM myth.

Not a trap, I literally misread the context. Apologies, carry on.

This is patently unfalsifiable though. How can anyone contradict it?

"Trump voters were really economically anxious! They didn't mention it and none of their other behaviors are consistent with that, but that's just what I predicted! Look how disenfranchised they are, they can't even identify the source of their misery!"

Uh, OK. Could be? That's the best I can say. Maybe gravity isn't real, it's just a trick God does, he always makes the apples fall down. I dunno bro, might be true.

Can we use the 2020 re-election campaign as a heuristic? If Trump -- who looks like he's on the verge of simply reinstating governments run by a cadre of Republicans and bankers and lobbyists go full Paul Ryan and rollback Medicare and slash taxes for the rich and do precisely nothing to actually upset the neoliberal apple cart -- if he plays to cheers and rallies on a campaign of racial resentment and gets ~47% again -- is that contradictory, or is that just more "well those poor hapless economically anxious, they just didn't even realize Trump did nothing for them, shame on you Tony Blair! The power of false consciousness!"

What?

Look, at some point, AT SOME ****ING POINT here doesn't all this behavior have to square?

1. GOP spends decades rolling back New Deal, deregulating, destroying labor, slavishly implementing market orthodoxy, dogwhistling racism
+
2. Trump runs campaign of racial resentment, wins nomination, wins Presidency
=
3. It's the economy stupid, even when they said it was the immigration and the refugees and terrorism, it's really their frustration with their lack of economic mobility and wage stagnation

In what ****ing planet does #3 make sense? You add up the obvious history of the GOP being the party of neoliberal market orthodoxies + white racial grievance, all the things Trump talked about and was known for (white racial grievance) plus a Trump government that seems poised to just implement Paul Ryan's tax cut/gut the welfare state agenda, and in the end you get...a movement to elect Trump that really wants the end to neoliberal market orthodoxies and where racial resentments are a distraction? Doesn't add up.

Like obviously Santa Jesus is a single example because TwoPlusTwo probably doesn't have enough bandwith for all the herp derp nonsensical memes RightWingFreedomNews.com ****s out, but as some point the "Trump voters are really economically anxious" has to make a positive case beyond "snarky internet liberals evidence for the other side is just too old, polls don't work, haven't seen enough memes yet."

Right now you have "lol Dvaut" and nothing beyond that, OAFK has "false consciousness makes it so they don't talk about all their economic anxiety, instead it comes out as racism." At some point you need some compelling ****ing evidence beyond laffing at liberals, SCOREBOARD type arguments and OAFK's gut feels.

I dont see how you can look at that word cloud and see anything other than a strong endorsement of the article I posted above.

Its almost like bad economic conditions have never been blamed on immigrants before and/or conditions not actually causing them....oh wait, its standard.

As for my gut feels, I think you will find my perspectives here and expressed elsewhere broadly analogous with 99% of left commentators from the Euro tradition.

Its nice of you to reduce that tradition of social anthropology down to gut feels.

1. Economy is great cant be the economy.
2. Economy is not great.
3. Oh they just racists tho.

Is the economy "going great"? Seems like a lot of mixed signals.

But hold on. Is that the argument? Isn't it that Trump voters are suffering, economically anxious?

Make sense of it for me:

Your sentiments sound like the misapplication of a traditional explanation which when pressed for evidence, you are resorting to gut feels for why the data doesn't match what you're arguing.

No one here is making the case that all Trump voters must be scared about the jerbs. That is a reason being put forth about why a slim margin of Rust Belters flipped from Obama to Trump. You, on the other hand, just want to call every one of them racists.

Don't really need anything beyond that until you come up with something besides word polls you misread and a Jesus meme.

Well go read some typical lefty explanations of Trump from Euroland. Most will follow the track I am.

I already posted one example for you.

The ones that voted trump are.

I have replied to this several times.

Again the assumption that its only lol poors who can suffer from your words not mine economic anxiety is massively mistaken. At best its another lazy 5% generalisation.

All of the following I mentioned above can apply to some of the above groups, especially the group with the biggest + towards Trump.
Its almost like the stereotype of the middle classes is not strewn with memes about economic and status agnst.

Its not economic anxiety though, its the idea that rational society, run by the technocrats thereby, delivers bigger and better as it moves along the historical timeline, progress, its the reversal in this or at least stagnation, + the idea that government has no agency to change it, that is the economic determinant of Trump.

Those in the middle class can feel this as much if not more keenly than the working classes.

Also, the elephant in the room, LOL TURNOUT.

I can acknowledge some mythical tipping point voter in the Rust Belt is probably some sort of Obama --> Trump voter but here again the narrative is sort of nonsensical. Working class Rust Belt whites voted for and like Obama, a neoliberal free trader who supports TPP, then flipped to Trump because of working class interests? Obama was and is a lot closer to Clinton than Bernie, certainly a hell of a lot closer to Clinton than Trump. Why are we assigning a bunch of rational motivations to these people whose behaviors almost prima facie don't make sense?

We've seen this a lot: oh sure, these people don't seem to rate high on knowledge and you can't make sense of their Obama --> Trump support, but they surely have a unified coherent explanation for their angst, it's just jobs and the economy.

lol "don't really need to post any evidence." 2/235's posting in a nutshell. Stick to the one line jokes yo.

Anyway, already posted, in addition to the word cloud stuff:

1) Trump voters two top issues in exit polls were immigration and terrorism
2) Voters making $50k or less, the kind of people who are likely to be economically anxious, actually voted in favor of Clinton by large margins

Uh huh. And I'm the bait and switch artist. Well, if you just casually at the end flop out the working class for the middle class and "well not really economic anxiety" but some nebulous stuff about change agency and the failure of technocrats, BOOM, we have our economic determining factors.

I mean I sort feel compelled to agree with you in a sense that this wasn't a populist working class uprising, but a middle class one. Finally we're starting to approach truth and consensus. And I agree if you define "economic anxiety" as not "worried about my current financial state of affairs" and instead pivot to the idea that the Democratic Party embraced a bunch of neoliberal assumptions that people can't express agency through the government ergo the Hayek --> Trump idea that you can just fill the space with an empty sloganeering canvas of derp and voters will be fine with it -- we agree.

But we've went from "working class, economically anxious voters" powered Trump to "middle class voters don't see much utility in government and the Democrats/Blair left types got duped into repeating this, so the right filled the space with anti-politics cultural grievances where genuine policies used to exist that could improve the lives of the middle class" which to me is far, far more amenable an explanation. So long as we recognize the actual stark differences between the two things, that working class and anxious <> middle class suckers bought a lot of bull**** about the purpose of government.

The working class, economically anxious voted for Clinton. The middle class and up whites who got duped by a generations long fairy tale into about how government is for corrupt thieves to hand things to darkies and foreigners and in the end eroded all of their welfare state and labor protections and now are lashing out at working more and getting less while minorities catch up -- fine, fine, we're on board. But let's not pretend they are actually living hand to mouth or suffering greatly, that they all work manufacturing, that they give a flying **** about economic policy at all. The whole "dismantle the New Deal consensus" was borne straight out of white identity politics. That's how the right-wing opinion architects got the buy-in! The white middle class and up types bought two discrete lies: 1) government doesn't matter to me (shame on Democrats for letting this happen) and 2) it only exists to enrich the people I don't like. But that is a very, very different argument than they are actually looking to tear down the neoliberal consensus and that it's fueled primarily by working class types.

Dont think that evidence is the evidence you are looking for.

I knew you would pull this, but what I have said here is consistent with everything I have posted previously. I have said much, several long posts, about "change agency" and "technocrats" and the whole only poors can feel anxious is totally your framing of the debate which I have disputed numerous times. You made an assumption and assumed everyone shared it.

The income exit polls are interesting but I hope eventually we get more granular data that takes into account age, family size, and cost of living, etc.

Europeans should just be banned forever on speaking of American politics. I am not kidding. Yeah, whatever not all Europeans.