FAQ
It is currently Mon May 22, 2017 5:32 pm


Author Message
paleoichneum
Post  Post subject: Re: No Trump 2016- dot org site counterpart  |  Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2016 9:42 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 420

Offline
You do realize just how subjective an overly broad that definition is right

_________________
The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.


Top
Rory
Post  Post subject: Re: No Trump 2016- dot org site counterpart  |  Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2016 10:02 pm
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1895

Offline
It's not subjective, it's testable. Just ask the participants, "would your finances be sound if you didn't check your bank balance at least once per month?"

It staggers me how people still don't get it. There was an entire article devoted to it in Nature this week.

WE'RE NOT ALL DOING OKAY.

_________________
If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim


Top
paleoichneum
Post  Post subject: Re: No Trump 2016- dot org site counterpart  |  Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:06 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 420

Offline
Stop acting like everybody is saying everybody is doing okay.

Your question fails because it gives no definable range of money there are people who don't check their bank account and don't do much more than live paycheck-to-paycheck and there are people that check their bank account every single day and they don't have to

_________________
The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.


Top
Falconer360
Post  Post subject: Re: No Trump 2016- dot org site counterpart  |  Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:19 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:30 pm
Posts: 969
Location: Somewhere in the Great State of Washington

Offline
For example you could make 6,000 a month and still be living paycheck to paycheck, or you could be making $2,000 a month and never need to check your bank account.

_________________
"For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled." Hunter S Thompson
"It is easy to kill someone with a slash of a sword. It is hard to be impossible for others to cut down" - Yagyu Munenori


Top
Pong
Post  Post subject: Re: No Trump 2016- dot org site counterpart  |  Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:39 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 2:53 am
Posts: 219

Offline
Won my bet! :D

Not that either candidate would win - it was that results would be within 5%. Turns out popular vote was 47% vs. 48%.

My theory (tested once) was that regardless of how the campaign progressed (made the bet before Trump was sure in) electorate/media/discourse would second-guess itself into a delicate balance, and we'd craft ourselves a suspenseful election night. At the time I said Republican could run a plate of cheeses and it would still capture half the vote.

Test #2: 4 years hence, barring martial law or similarly extraordinary irregularity, popular vote will be within 3%.

I don't yet understand the mechanism.


Top
Lynx_Fox
Post  Post subject: Re: No Trump 2016- dot org site counterpart  |  Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 12:18 am

Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:17 am
Posts: 201
Location: US Pacific NorthWest

Offline
Rory wrote:
Somebody who doesn't have to worry about the bills, who can safely get by without checking their bank balance at least once per month.



That's pretty silly definition. Privilege is more about an expectation you'll never be in those situations and inherently have shouldn't be because of who your daddy was, race, side of tracks you were born on etc


Top
Pong
Post  Post subject: Re: No Trump 2016- dot org site counterpart  |  Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 3:37 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 2:53 am
Posts: 219

Offline
Come on,

"what % are privileged or comfortable vs what % are poor or struggling?"

the meaning is plain.

And plenty of good data to draw the line through.


Top
Lynx_Fox
Post  Post subject: Re: No Trump 2016- dot org site counterpart  |  Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 5:22 am

Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:17 am
Posts: 201
Location: US Pacific NorthWest

Offline
It's not plain at all because of people's different expectations. I have one friend who makes nearly 5 digit dollars a year but still complains about the burden of making his bills--of course, he was raised middle class and can't even imagine not owning (and making payments) on a two year old full size blinged out pickup truck, or not having a two story 3000 square foot home with a garage full of toys, or not eating at a good restaurant three or four evenings a week. Yet because of his expectations and how he lives he really does "struggle."

On the other hand, I have friends that drive old beaters, downsized immediately after their kids left home, actually live modestly and aren't' really "struggling" because they don't live to limit or beyond their means.

I'm kind of in the middle. Raised dirt poor, as soon as we could, saved and invested about 20% of every paycheck for 35 years and now partially disabled from a life in the Army, live in a triple wide with two older vehicles and "working" 30+ hours a week doing volunteer services for my community. We don't have lots of spending money, a modest fixed income, but have good medical coverage and a sizeable nest egg.

If there's plenty of "good data" to drive a line through then let us have some so this becomes a more meaningful empirically based discussion.


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: No Trump 2016- dot org site counterpart  |  Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 5:40 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5521
Location: Austin, Texas

Offline
Agree the definition of "privileged" provided fails on multiple fronts for the reasons cited and for others (how to classify those born into wealth versus those who earned it being another obvious example).

The percentage question originally asked is just a red herring, though.

Rory - You said the ONLY people decrying Trump are privileged. Once we agree on a useful definition of that term, it's safe to assume that at least one single person out of the 7+ billion on the planet will fall outside that definition and also will have decried Trump, thus rendering your point immediately false.

Rory wrote:
There was an entire article devoted to it in Nature this week.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Nature would've rejected (laughed at?) your proposed definition, too.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Pong
Post  Post subject: Re: No Trump 2016- dot org site counterpart  |  Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 5:47 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 2:53 am
Posts: 219

Offline
Here ya go: By sex race age education etc.


Top
Rory
Post  Post subject: Re: No Trump 2016- dot org site counterpart  |  Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 6:55 am
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1895

Offline
iNow stop being pedantic jeez do I have to preface EVERYTHING. This what I'm writing right now is a sentence, read it left to right.

If I were trying to make a publication standard argument I'd give a specific definition and income threshold, when just wanting to talk with fellow members I don't want to have to sound like Britannica.

Really, you don't get what I mean by "privileged" vs "struggling"?

Image

_________________
If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: No Trump 2016- dot org site counterpart  |  Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 2:20 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5521
Location: Austin, Texas

Offline
Why don't you respect your fellow forum members enough to offer a more thoughtful definition as directly requested, or at least to edit the original point if you're unable?

My problem here is that you're clearly not unable. You're unwilling and choosing to be unnecessarily obstinate.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Rory
Post  Post subject: Re: No Trump 2016- dot org site counterpart  |  Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 3:21 pm
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1895

Offline
No need to - Pong has posted the relevant statistics, just look under income.

_________________
If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: No Trump 2016- dot org site counterpart  |  Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 4:13 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5521
Location: Austin, Texas

Offline
Done. Now, do we also need to show you examples of multiple people below those boundaries shown in the metrics... people not privileged... decrying Trump before you'll concede you were wrong, or do you plan to only further dig in your heels?

Since this seems to be falling on deaf ears, let me just be more proactively specific.

Millions of people of Mexican heritage are decrying Trump. Not all of them are "privileged."
Millions of people who are Muslim are decrying Trump. Not all of them are "privileged."
Millions of people who want us to address climate change are decrying Trump. Not all of them are "privileged."
Millions of people who feel lobbyists have too much power are decrying Trump. Not all of them are "privileged."
Millions of women are decrying Trump for his actions, comments, and treatment of women. Not all of them are "privileged."
Millions of people who value our commitments to other nations and international peace treaties are decrying Trump. Not all of them are "privileged."
Millions of people who have health coverage thanks to Obamacare and are likely about to lose it are decrying Trump. Not all of them are "privileged."

I could go on, but suspect I don't have to. Stop making bullshit points and we'll stop calling you out for posting billshit, Rory.

You have a voice. You have something meaningful to say. You have a viewpoint others need to hear. I and probably many others here are tired, however, of you surrending your credibility by so consistently putting forth little more than petulant rants and hyperbolic nonsense.

You want others to do and be better? Try leading by example next time.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Rory
Post  Post subject: Re: No Trump 2016- dot org site counterpart  |  Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 6:09 pm
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1895

Offline
So it was mostly the white vote that secured Trump's victory - white working class, white middle class, white wealthy. White, white, white.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters-victory-donald-trump-exit-polls

New hypothesis: all classes have suffered even during the so-called "recovery" and, in terms of social mobility, have either stalled or regressed. So even the highest socio-economic classes feel aggrieved.

_________________
If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim


Top
Falconer360
Post  Post subject: Re: No Trump 2016- dot org site counterpart  |  Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 7:35 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:30 pm
Posts: 969
Location: Somewhere in the Great State of Washington

Offline
Not sure how people vote over in the UK, but here in the US for many people they vote along party lines regardless of the candidates. I would argue that many of the votes for Trump were not because they want to shake things up, but because he has that R next to his name. And to them that R means, he's against abortion, he supports Christianity (unlike the the godless democrats with their evolution :roll: ), he hates mexicans, and he wants more military. Don't believe me come to Eastern Washington and talk to the Republicans here. Furthermore because most of them are bible thumping Christians, they will vote for any Republican over a Democrat who either believes in evolution or is pro-choice towards abortion. To these people things like the economy take a back seat over the other issues and it shows in the polls that Pong posted.

_________________
"For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled." Hunter S Thompson
"It is easy to kill someone with a slash of a sword. It is hard to be impossible for others to cut down" - Yagyu Munenori


Top
wireless
Post  Post subject: Re: No Trump 2016- dot org site counterpart  |  Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 7:56 pm

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 9:55 am
Posts: 267

Offline
post deleted.


Last edited by wireless on Sat Dec 03, 2016 8:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.


Top
wireless
Post  Post subject: Re: No Trump 2016- dot org site counterpart  |  Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 8:04 pm

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 9:55 am
Posts: 267

Offline
Rory wrote:
So it was mostly the white vote that secured Trump's victory - white working class, white middle class, white wealthy. White, white, white.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters-victory-donald-trump-exit-polls

New hypothesis: all classes have suffered even during the so-called "recovery" and, in terms of social mobility, have either stalled or regressed. So even the highest socio-economic classes feel aggrieved.

And quite right you are too. The Liberal Elite cannot come to terms with a crushing defeat of their World Views. A crushing defeat of the Liberal Elite by an individual, that they sneered at just over 18 months ago. A crushing defeat of the Liberal Elite by regular American voters that they sneered at just over 18 months ago. Hey Ho, here we go.


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: No Trump 2016- dot org site counterpart  |  Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 8:16 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5521
Location: Austin, Texas

Offline
Rory wrote:
So it was mostly the white vote that secured Trump's victory - white working class, white middle class, white wealthy. White, white, white.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters-victory-donald-trump-exit-polls

New hypothesis: all classes have suffered even during the so-called "recovery" and, in terms of social mobility, have either stalled or regressed. So even the highest socio-economic classes feel aggrieved.

Much like Brexit, it was old, uneducated, white people, specifically: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/whe ... -his-edge/

Fortunately, they're dying off at a much more rapid pace than the young people who feel and vote differently.

It's a mistake to think it was working class folks voting Trump, though. That's the biggest myth out there right now (not necessarily your direct point, but one I see repeated often enough to warrant comment).

Median income of the Trump voter was $72,000/year which is WELL above median national income of 56K, and also higher than median income of the average Hillary and Bernie voter. The working class supported democrats, but got derailed by the electoral college and gerrymandered districts: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the ... s-support/

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Rory
Post  Post subject: Re: No Trump 2016- dot org site counterpart  |  Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:57 pm
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1895

Offline
54% white male and 45% white female college graduates voted for Trump; more 18-29 year old whites voted for Trump (48%) than for Clinton (43%).

So, no, it cannot be reduced to "old, uneducated whites" (the whites bit is true, the rest isn't).

_________________
If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: No Trump 2016- dot org site counterpart  |  Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 11:15 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5521
Location: Austin, Texas

Offline
I sourced my data. Do you believe it's inaccurate?

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Falconer360
Post  Post subject: Re: No Trump 2016- dot org site counterpart  |  Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 11:22 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:30 pm
Posts: 969
Location: Somewhere in the Great State of Washington

Offline
Rory wrote:
54% white male and 45% white female college graduates voted for Trump; more 18-29 year old whites voted for Trump (48%) than for Clinton (43%).

So, no, it cannot be reduced to "old, uneducated whites" (the whites bit is true, the rest isn't).

Before we get too attached to these numbers lets just be clear that these exit polls are not official numbers just the results of different exit polls. That being said the results that Pong posted contradict the article you posted and actually the article hasn't updated from their source data The CNN Edison poll which shows 55% of people 18-29 years old voted for Clinton. The Majority of voters under 45 actually voted for her in general. Link to the source data from the guardian article you linked: http://edition.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls

Also the older portion of our country have the highest voter turnout generally, so they typically outnumber 18-29 year old voters by a long shot.

_________________
"For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled." Hunter S Thompson
"It is easy to kill someone with a slash of a sword. It is hard to be impossible for others to cut down" - Yagyu Munenori


Top
Rory
Post  Post subject: Re: No Trump 2016- dot org site counterpart  |  Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2016 8:35 am
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1895

Offline
Okay so a majority of youth voted Clinton - but look at the size of that majority; 55% vs 45%. I wouldn't call that a landslide in favour of Clinton. It's almost half and half.

Almost 1 in 2 young people voted for Trump.

That's an even more drastic result when you consider that youth can normally be relied on to vote for left wing idealism.

Also, a point on the "educated" vote. Just because you have graduated college does not mean that you are smarter or wiser than a fellow non-graduate who has been working, paying taxes, running their own business, raising children, and living in the real world. In fact, many graduates here in the UK rack up tens of thousands of pounds in student debt for a piece of paper that is disregarded on the labour market. I do not regard them as smart or wise.

_________________
If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: No Trump 2016- dot org site counterpart  |  Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:00 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5521
Location: Austin, Texas

Offline
Rory wrote:
I wouldn't call that a landslide in favour of Clinton.

Nobody else here did, either.

Rory wrote:
Also, a point on the "educated" vote. Just because you have graduated college does not mean that you are smarter or wiser than a fellow non-graduate who has been working, paying taxes, running their own business, raising children, and living in the real world.

You do realize, right, that many/most who are educated ALSO work, pay taxes, run businesses, raise children, and live "in the real world?" You're asserting a distinction that doesn't exist, Rory, suggesting a distinction without a difference.

Rory wrote:
In fact, many graduates here in the UK rack up tens of thousands of pounds in student debt for a piece of paper that is disregarded on the labour market. I do not regard them as smart or wise.

Which is precisely why we use the term "educated," not smart or wise.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Rory
Post  Post subject: Re: No Trump 2016- dot org site counterpart  |  Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:39 pm
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1895

Offline
If there's no meaningful distinction between graduates and non-graduates then why does that category of vote exist?

_________________
If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim


Top
Rory
Post  Post subject: Re: No Trump 2016- dot org site counterpart  |  Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:44 pm
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1895

Offline
"They're dying off at a much more rapid pace than the young voters who feel differently"

THAT'S why I made my "landslide" comment. You are insinuating that youth do not accord with Trump. Well, almost 1 in 2 young people are on his side. Is 1 in 2 not many? Do I need to go back to school and learn what "many" means?

Trump is flowing through the veins of the next generation.

Edit: actually, 48% of white 18-29 year olds voted for Trump.

_________________
If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: No Trump 2016- dot org site counterpart  |  Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2016 7:35 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5521
Location: Austin, Texas

Offline
Saying that 1 in 2 young people voted for Trump is equivalent to suggesting they chose btw him and Clinton at a rate of 50/50, which is (to put it kindly) playing a bit fast and loose with facts and reality.



Image

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37889032


Rory wrote:
Trump is flowing through the veins of the next generation.

I suppose we'll see, won't we? Until then, your crystal ball is no better than anyone else's.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Lynx_Fox
Post  Post subject: Re: No Trump 2016- dot org site counterpart  |  Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2016 10:11 pm

Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:17 am
Posts: 201
Location: US Pacific NorthWest

Offline
There's a big difference between "being on his side" and voting for him. There's a lot of data that suggest most voted for negative reasons-- specifically many were convinced Hillery was the devil, and even more simply completely fed up with government at all levels not helping or even being slightly sympathetic to their situations. Many of their issues are valid, crumbling infrastructure, huge swaths of rural America without good internet or even cell phone coverage both of which stifle business and educational opportunities. The sad thing is many of their complaints aren't even valid, but instead vilification of minority groups stoked to incite fear and anger to get down-ballot votes; vilification of the sciences about climate change and proven methods of effective education etc.


Top
Rory
Post  Post subject: Re: No Trump 2016- dot org site counterpart  |  Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:06 pm
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1895

Offline
48% of white 18-29 year olds voted for Trump. Okay, that's not 50/50, it's 48/52.

The figure is lower for non-white youth, but that's a function of race not age.

_________________
If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim


Top
paleoichneum
Post  Post subject: Re: No Trump 2016- dot org site counterpart  |  Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:30 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 420

Offline
Rory wrote:
48% of white 18-29 year olds voted for Trump. Okay, that's not 50/50, it's 48/52.

The figure is lower for non-white youth, but that's a function of race not age.

Cite your data!


That is not the figure posted by inow from the BBC coillations

_________________
The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.


Top
GiantEvil
Post  Post subject: Re: No Trump 2016- dot org site counterpart  |  Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2016 1:08 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 10:19 am
Posts: 786

Offline
thegaurdian wrote:
More 18- to 29-year-old whites voted for Trump (48%) than Clinton (43%).

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters-victory-donald-trump-exit-polls

_________________
It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.
-W. K. Clifford-


Top
paleoichneum
Post  Post subject: Re: No Trump 2016- dot org site counterpart  |  Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2016 1:33 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 420

Offline
GiantEvil wrote:
thegaurdian wrote:
More 18- to 29-year-old whites voted for Trump (48%) than Clinton (43%).

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters-victory-donald-trump-exit-polls

and as noted the guardian numbers are out of date, see the BBC numbers for the more current numbers, also note
The Guardian US wrote:
based on a sample of 24,537 respondents at 350 polling stations, is not definitive


The guardian article itself notes the data is small and possibly flawed. That note is born out by more updated data from the sources provided.

_________________
The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.


Last edited by paleoichneum on Mon Dec 05, 2016 1:38 am, edited 1 time in total.


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: No Trump 2016- dot org site counterpart  |  Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2016 1:38 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5521
Location: Austin, Texas

Offline
Rory wrote:
48% of white 18-29 year olds voted for Trump. Okay, that's not 50/50, it's 48/52.

The figure is lower for non-white youth, but that's a function of race not age.

And what is the value of arbitrarily looking only at white voters since white voter aged adults will be a minority within 20-30 years and are hardly the only skin color of citizens that votes today?

Help us understand the relevance of your point and why looking solely at whites is useful in this context.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... only-just/

Image

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Rory
Post  Post subject: Re: No Trump 2016- dot org site counterpart  |  Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2016 10:53 am
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1895

Offline
Because age is mostly irrelevant. The effect you're seeing is a function of race.

_________________
If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: No Trump 2016- dot org site counterpart  |  Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2016 4:03 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5521
Location: Austin, Texas

Offline
Rory wrote:
Because age is mostly irrelevant. The effect you're seeing is a function of race.

All you've done is repeat yourself. I understand that's what you're saying. My question was different. I'm asking you to elaborate.

Even if I agree that age is irrelevant (which I don't, but for the sake of discussion, let's just say I do), what benefit is there to looking solely at the white vote when having this discussion?

Whites aren't the only skin color that votes now, and further will soon themselves be in the minority once being born today reach voting age.

So, why do you feel this is a useful metric for us to focus on here in this discussion? It's not clear to me. I'm asking for your help to better understand your position.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
paleoichneum
Post  Post subject: Re: No Trump 2016- dot org site counterpart  |  Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2016 4:05 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 420

Offline
Rory wrote:
Because age is mostly irrelevant. The effect you're seeing is a function of race.

But the BBC results Show a distinct shift in vote preference with age. Something You are studiously avoiding seeing

_________________
The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Print view

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Jump to:   
cron

Delete all board cookies | The team | All times are UTC


This free forum is proudly hosted by ProphpBB | phpBB software | Report Abuse | Privacy