The desire among the geezers of the blogging class to pin the blame for Trump on white Christians who didn't go to college and who have blue collar jobs and especially those who have a Southern or Mid-Western accent is a perfect example of the kind of clueless kicking down that those cowards love to engage in, safe in their middle to upper class environs, safe in their white skins, safe in the milieu of insulation that they liberalize from as they preen in their superiority to those benighted hoards.
That kind of stuff is an artifact of the folly of believing all such questions such as "who do we blame Trump on" can be discerned scientifically, with the methods of that most typical of college-educated superstition, Sociology, surveying, polling, blah, blah, blah. But the question is even stupider than trying to figure out which day, which hour, which minute, which second the cancer went from being curable to being fatal. The reasons and motives and, even more so, the identity of who it was who cast the deciding votes that handed the election to an outright fascist are hardly likely to fall neatly into sociological categories, selected for the convenience of the surveyor's tabulation and analysis and likely by the outcome they want. And there is no guarantee of how accurate one or all of the answers they got is, just to start with the pretense of the exercise.
Since you and your tag team buddy would seem to want to put the blame on those Christians you hate so much...
I think what we really learn from the exercise of assigning blame tells us everything about the minds and motives of those who assign blame and little to nothing about who actually deserves blame. There were and no doubt still are Evangelicals for Hillary , there were even anti-abortion Evangelicals who were for Hillary much to the anger of other Evangelicals. The Democratic coalition has always included and absolutely depended on large numbers of Black and Latino church goers as well as White ones. If you insist on sociology here, from the high church of that stuff Pew.
At the other end of the spectrum, an overwhelming majority of members of the AME Church (92%) identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party, while just 4% say they favor the Republican Party (an 88-point gap). Similarly, 87% of members of the National Baptist Convention and 75% of members of the Church of God in Christ (another historically black denomination) identify as Democrats.
,,, Catholics are divided politically in our survey, just as they were in the 2012 election. While 37% say they favor the GOP, 44% identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party (and 19% say they do not lean either way). In the 2012 election, 50% of Catholics said they voted for Obama, while 48% voted for Romney.
Members of mainline Protestant churches look similar to Catholics in this regard. For example, 44% of members of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) identify as or lean Republican in the survey, compared with 47% who are Democrats or Democratic-leaning. United Methodists and Anglicans are slightly more likely than other mainline groups to say they are Republicans, while members of the United Church of Christ are more likely to be Democrats.
And even among the groups that mostly go for Republicans, there are likely to be highly significant percentages of them which vote for Democrats.
Adding up the Democrats in just those churches which are largely identified with Republicans, by sheer numbers, I would bet there are more Democratic voters among them than there are non-Christians or professed atheists, a group which apparently even that source of so much recent atheist propaganda choose not to include in this chart. How Agnostics escaped from the "Nones" umbrella would be interesting to know but no more than why Pew, an allegedly honest group, uses that ideological fiction. It could also be pointed out that there are identifiable groups within those cruder labels who voted against the type, I was shocked to find out that Orthodox in Brooklyn went heavily for Trump, perhaps it was due to his daughter's conversion when she married that Kushner creep.
What I learn from snobs like you who want to pin responsibility for Donald Trump on the poeple in the underclass he conned instead of the media who were in on the con job with Trump is exactly what I said, you are conceited snobs who like to believe you're a lot smarter than your political history proves you to be and who have a deep and abiding hatred of poor people unless you can romanticize and sentimentalize them on the basis of their not being white. If people like you hadn't started that crap safe in their white collar enclaves fifty to sixty years ago, the white underclass would be a lot harder marks for the Trumps and Republicanfascists. You guys had a lot more to do with elevating Trump, especially those in your alleged profession of journalism than some poor white people who live in a trailer, who can't get their kids educated, who have a work life similar to that of the fictitious Ennis Del Mar and who will get shafted by Trump just as they have in the past. You're hardly the only ones to blame but you're right up there. And if you don't like me targeting your colleagues in journalism, many of whom opposed Trump, I was only applying your rules to you.
I know this is too much mathematical thinking for you, even though I didn't go through the numbers, it apparently is for your, um, "scientific" buddy, as well.
Update 3: Oh, I was wrong, they did include Atheists in the chart. I should have blown it up more. Compare the number of Atheists who voted Republican with the AME church and The National Baptist Conventions. Just for the fun of confounding the atheist "Xian" bashers.
Fuck you, you hick asshole. Evangelicals supported Trump overwhelmingly.
ReplyDeleteThe only honest criterion of determining who can be blamed for Donald Trump is who supported him, and in that the well-paid, hardly evengelical almost entirely white owners of the media, their staffs, etc. they guys you defend at the drop of an accusation, stand heads and shoulders above any poor people of any description.
DeleteYou are a gutless snob of the kind whose identification with the Democratic Party and liberalism is a liability to both groups.
Actually, they didn't. Not that you would know what an "evangelical" was to begin with. Some non-religious leaders (Falwell's kid, the current head of Focus on the Family) were strongly pro-Trump, but not the majority of, say, the Southern Baptist Convention (largest Protestant denomination in America).
ReplyDeleteAnd, of course, there's the whole fact the "poor" are the subject of your concern until they don't act the way you want them to (largely because they don't feel your compassion, apparently), and then they are to be discarded to the place of outer darkness.
The simple fact is, Trump garnered only about 200,000 more votes than Romney did. The problem wasn't that the poor and the ignorant whites (as you see them) voted overwhelmingly for Trump: the problem was (and I say this as a life-long Democrat), the Democrats took the black and Hispanic vote for granted, assumed they would turn out because Trump was so outrageous, and basically just ran out the clock.
Turnout of those two stalwart groups was down from 2012, so maybe that strategy wasn't so smart, after all (besides, Clinton won the popular vote. It was the vote in particular states that cost her the election).
Atheists are not an organized political group. Evangelicals are.
ReplyDeleteFuck you, you hick asswipe.
The simple fact is that bigots and religious nuts voted overwhelmingly for Trump. Fuck them,
ReplyDeleteHere's a clue -- if you voted for Trump, you're morally complicit and as bad as him.
ReplyDeleteI don't give a fuck about your socio-economic status or what fucking class you are. You voted for a Nazi, then you're a Nazi.