Monday, December 05, 2016

The Giant Awakens?

Both Republicans and Democrats have focused on the whiteness and maleness and less-education and anger of the Trump voter, especially in the Rust Belt counties/states that switched from narrowly Democratic to narrowly Republican four weeks ago. The impression is created of a slow, resentful giant emerging from the earth wearing a tool belt to trudge down to the voting booth, claiming what he believes is his.

Yet the impression of giantness is based on percentages in the turnout. The totals of absolute votes are known, but their composition is only estimated, based on exit polls. If “Trump got turnout from his people,” that could have been countered by Hillary getting turnout from her people.

It could be that the giant was the one who stayed in the earth.  Hillary did better among women, so “giantess” might be more accurate. One might have expected less excitement among African-Americans after the draw of voting for Obama, but there seems to have been a lot less excitement. A smallish giant may have risen up, but a few smaller giants lying down may have been more the issue.  The dog that didn’t bark may be the real story.

Further notes.

There is a lot of discussion about the male-female voting in this election, overlooking an important qualifier, as usual.  The split was greater this time, but it’s the same split we see every election.  In the breakdown by marital status, not further broken down by race, married men were solidly for Trump;  married women and unmarried men were about even-up; single women were strongly for Hillary. When one looks only at a strict male-female breakdown it can obscure the knowledge that husbands and wives tend to vote similarly.  I recall a number of 80% from years ago, though I have no idea what the basis of that was. The reporting this election focused more on wives who were angry at their husbands who were voting for Trump, and Dear Abby*, what should I do? I admit that’s better clickbait.     

As for the education breakdown, I’m not sure the MBA’s are going to be as solidly Republican as years ago, nor are engineers, but I’ll bet it’s still strong. Graduate degrees in education are going to trend strongly liberal, but not entirely. The public administration/social service group is going to be overwhelmingly liberal.  I bring this up because from whence comes the money, one’s self-interest, does influence the vote. The intended implication that more education = wiser usually leaves that out. 

*I love it when important publications try to pretend they are writing something above the level of Dear Abby, when they actually are a couple ticks below.


Sam L. said...

I'm pretty sure my wife and I voted differently (and she is, too). I have an MBA and a bachelor's in a hard and difficult science. I'm pretty sure Hillary wouldn't like me if we ever met, which I would certainly avoid to the best of my ability. Totally unlikely, though, my being in Flyoverlandia. I'm not as solid a republican as I used to be, but that's because of the national party.

Texan99 said...

A marriage that could be torn apart by Trump isn't much of a marriage.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

@T99. If you read the links, one woman had a comment section that was amazed she had put up with this man, but I was thinking throughout "He can't get rid of this entitled bitch quickly enough." It's not that she disagreed with him, it was how she went about it. Decent people don't do these things.

Texan99 said...

I just went and read the links. It struck me that the Trump supporters were surprised that their S.O.'s couldn't deal with it; only the Trump opposers insisted that it was impossible to live with someone who wouldn't go along with their own political views. Even the remarks about the dating service took that line, with the genders reversed in that case. Should I be surprised the authors of the article didn't notice this? Do they simply assume that it's natural for a Trump opposer to feel a moral revulsion that no reasonable person could be expected to overcome, but a Trump supporter (or Clinton opposer) would naturally never have any similar basis for re-evaluating his or her respect for the partner? Neither of these wives has a moment of self-doubt concerning how she'd feel if her husband threatened to leave her over her right to control her own vote?

It was also interesting that the woman married to the comedian had enough self-knowledge to realize that he had arguments and data at his fingertips while she had none.

Neither article even touched on what people found to be repulsive deal-breakers about Clinton. Truly a bubble world--and yet I'd bet money that the authors believed they were accomplishing some kind of even-handed treatment of how couples can differ over politics, and any attempt to show them otherwise would elicit accusations of "false equivalence."

Sam L. said...

There were links? Other than Oliver and Kelly? Sorry, no, I can't get interested. Still, those who dislike>>>>>>>hate Trump are likely to go beyond the pale, and those who like Trump are not. As evidenced by the post-election Anti-Trump rioters. Not dispositive, but how many Republican riots has the NYT/WaPo/Alphabets told us about?

Assistant Village Idiot said...

Well, the Trumpsters wouldn't riot, because THEY WON. The media is quite sure there would have been blood in the streets otherwise. Evidence seems to be a secondary consideration.

I didn't like Trump, but when you only believe half the negative stuff about him, rather than 100%, the election result looks different.

Texan99 said...

The election also looks different if you're capable of considering someone else's point of view. In the lead-up to the 2008 election I clearly wasn't paying enough attention to the mood of the country and was guilty of an attitude of "Oh, it's not that bad, they'll get over it." It's a lot easier in that situation to ruminate on how the country's going to pot and even how no one's getting the information they need (in order to agree with me) because the schools, the media, etc. Or even because they're all morally corrupted by the promise of free stuff that other people will pay for, because they haven't grown up enough to get over the belief that Mommy and Daddy will pay for everything important. Those are corrosive, insulting beliefs that will lose converts, not win them, whether they turn out to be true or half-true or entirely unjust. If I can't understand the picture from the other voter's point of view, I can't convince anyway, just as the people shouting "homophobe" at me can't keep my attention. Then both sides turn to force, often in the secure belief that it's for the other side's good, as if they were in a coma and eventually would wake up after we give them the medical treatment they need but can't consent to.

Texan99 said...

Can't convince "anyone" not "anyway."

Sam L. said...

We all remember those huge and horrible riots across the nation in 2008 and 2012 when the GOP candidates lost. Orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, do we?