Rigged for Hillary wrote:
LOL! Crazy Bernie gets screwed again.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EQMXPtqWsAIBEXw?format=jpg&name=small
That's actually pretty good.
Bernie is raising more money than anyone.
Shouldn't his donations be redistributed to all of the candidates?
Fat hurts wrote:
Trump wrote:
Tell that to the farmer who creates your tofu!
Tell that to the plumber and electrician who built your house!
Tell that to the factory worker who built the subway cars and bus that you ride everyday!
Tell that to the dude who brewed your beer!
I don't drink alcohol.
If your point is that people who help bring us food, housing, and electricity are very important, then I agree.
But also consider:
The tractors used by the tofu (soybean) farmer were designed by college grads.
The buses and subways were designed by college grads.
My transportation is an electric car designed by college grads.
The plumbing and electrical equipment were designed by college grads.
These college grads are not brainwashed. They are just intelligent and educated.
But if you grow up thinking that education means brainwashing then you are doomed to grow up stupid. And as John Wayne always said, "Life is hard. It's even harder if you're stupid."
Big city money has fueled growth since before the industrial revolution. There is no question it’s money from blue cities that keeps business in this country running and expanding. Now sure many of those city finders are conservative but there can be no debate about rural vs cities when it comes to economic fuel.
Trump wrote:
SiIlyWiIly wrote:
How many names who "annoy" you will you register, jamin?
Nice chatting with ya!
I gotta go clean the snow off the solar panels on my roof!
?
A hole in your cardboard box is now a solar panel. Wow.
Trump wrote:
You are mocking me and making fun of me. Would you like to apologize?
Is that you Sally?
agip wrote:
Ciro wrote:
Wrong, I’ve posted two articles that contradict that. How many more do you want/need?
It’s a myth, simply not true at all.
those articles were narrow - focused only on the working class. they didn't pretend to do any sort of overall evalution of the Trump vs HRC voter. they ignored the poor and the rich, for example.
The numbers below are for the average voter of each candidate in the last presidential election. They did not omit anyone. You’re simply making your own narrative up as you go along.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/05/05/donald-trump-average-voter-income-72000-middle-class/83972800/Ciro wrote:
agip wrote:
those articles were narrow - focused only on the working class. they didn't pretend to do any sort of overall evalution of the Trump vs HRC voter. they ignored the poor and the rich, for example.
The numbers below are for the average voter of each candidate in the last presidential election. They did not omit anyone. You’re simply making your own narrative up as you go along.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/05/05/donald-trump-average-voter-income-72000-middle-class/83972800/
uh no, that story was written before the election. So it can't do what you claim it does.
Fat hurts wrote:
Trump wrote:
Tell that to the farmer who creates your tofu!
Tell that to the plumber and electrician who built your house!
Tell that to the factory worker who built the subway cars and bus that you ride everyday!
Tell that to the dude who brewed your beer!
I don't drink alcohol.
If your point is that people who help bring us food, housing, and electricity are very important, then I agree.
But also consider:
The tractors used by the tofu (soybean) farmer were designed by college grads.
The buses and subways were designed by college grads.
My transportation is an electric car designed by college grads.
The plumbing and electrical equipment were designed by college grads.
These college grads are not brainwashed. They are just intelligent and educated.
But if you grow up thinking that education means brainwashing then you are doomed to grow up stupid. And as John Wayne always said, "Life is hard. It's even harder if you're stupid."
You people need a shot of honesty in the arm. Educated people, especially those who live in cities and travel have richer lives and better things to do than obsessing and hating on the simpletons. Meanwhile, rural uneducated trash, tend to think they work harder than everybody else and that city dwellers are uncaring scary sinners. In my travels across the US I’ve seen a lot of that.. a lot of fat fvcks who haven’t managed to do shlt in their lives complaining endlessly about the city folk. This is why they love trump so much, they finally found a way to be relevant again by electing this idiot to trigger city liberals.
but look, we can go down a rabbit hole with these economic numbers, Ciro.
average or median? Going by exit polls or later analysis?
It's a very difficult analysis without a clear answer, but my understanding is that because the D party is urban and educated, it is now a wealthier group, by some measures, than the Repubs.
I can't find my source on that tho.
L L wrote:
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
LOL! Crazy Bernie gets screwed again.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EQMXPtqWsAIBEXw?format=jpg&name=smallThat's actually pretty good.
Bernie is raising more money than anyone.
Shouldn't his donations be redistributed to all of the candidates?
Bernie doesn't take super PAC money right?
agip wrote:
but look, we can go down a rabbit hole with these economic numbers, Ciro.
average or median? Going by exit polls or later analysis?
It's a very difficult analysis without a clear answer, but my understanding is that because the D party is urban and educated, it is now a wealthier group, by some measures, than the Repubs.
I can't find my source on that tho.
That says it all. We should go with your hunch instead.
Take a look at Dallas as city. On a whole it votes Democrat, but areas like Highland Park and University Park voted overwhelmingly Trump in 2016. They are the very wealthiest parts of the city. Yet the very poorest parts of Dallas (South Dallas) voted overwhelmingly Democrat.
There are poor urban dwellers and wealthy rural dwellers, your own personal narrative is flawed and you cannot back it up.
agip wrote:
Ciro wrote:
The numbers below are for the average voter of each candidate in the last presidential election. They did not omit anyone. You’re simply making your own narrative up as you go along.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/05/05/donald-trump-average-voter-income-72000-middle-class/83972800/uh no, that story was written before the election. So it can't do what you claim it does.
Fine, post election results. No one is excluded in any of these categories and the dispels the Trump working class vote as a myth and a lie.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/631244/voter-turnout-of-the-exit-polls-of-the-2016-elections-by-income/Ciro wrote:
agip wrote:
but look, we can go down a rabbit hole with these economic numbers, Ciro.
average or median? Going by exit polls or later analysis?
It's a very difficult analysis without a clear answer, but my understanding is that because the D party is urban and educated, it is now a wealthier group, by some measures, than the Repubs.
I can't find my source on that tho.
That says it all. We should go with your hunch instead.
Take a look at Dallas as city. On a whole it votes Democrat, but areas like Highland Park and University Park voted overwhelmingly Trump in 2016. They are the very wealthiest parts of the city. Yet the very poorest parts of Dallas (South Dallas) voted overwhelmingly Democrat.
There are poor urban dwellers and wealthy rural dwellers, your own personal narrative is flawed and you cannot back it up.
ciro come on. poor people vote at very low levels. They just don't show up. They are a very small group of voters. You have to at least agree with that.
This is 2018 not 2016, but here - the Ds are flipping rich districts that used to be Republican strongholds. Look at Orange County, CA. Rich, very white, was a R bastion. Now it is completely Democratic in the house. This is typical.
Here, peruse this list of rich districts that are flipping to blue.
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1072151951612231680?s=20Ciro wrote:
agip wrote:
uh no, that story was written before the election. So it can't do what you claim it does.
Fine, post election results. No one is excluded in any of these categories and the dispels the Trump working class vote as a myth and a lie.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/631244/voter-turnout-of-the-exit-polls-of-the-2016-elections-by-income/
that's some good data, excellent,
it shows that poor people are strongly dem and rich people are basically 50/50.
ok, I'd buy that.
You are pivoting you’re stance constantly.
We are talking about people who voted, let’s not forget that.
Quid Pro Joe is done. Already taking breaks, a Cankle's strategy that leads to defeat.
agip wrote:
Ciro wrote:
Fine, post election results. No one is excluded in any of these categories and the dispels the Trump working class vote as a myth and a lie.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/631244/voter-turnout-of-the-exit-polls-of-the-2016-elections-by-income/that's some good data, excellent,
it shows that poor people are strongly dem and rich people are basically 50/50.
ok, I'd buy that.
No, it’s not actually 50/50 they slightly favored Trump while their poorer American counterparts very clearly favored the Democratic candidate Clinton.
All of that is a long way from your original claim that “ with Trump that switched and Dems are now better off” - that’s demonstrably not true.
agip wrote:
Ciro wrote:
Fine, post election results. No one is excluded in any of these categories and the dispels the Trump working class vote as a myth and a lie.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/631244/voter-turnout-of-the-exit-polls-of-the-2016-elections-by-income/that's some good data, excellent,
it shows that poor people are strongly dem and rich people are basically 50/50.
ok, I'd buy that.
one interesting thing with your data - there is a clear trumpy jump among people in the 50k-99k income zone. That might be the 'working class' bump you are denying.
i loathe the term 'working class' -- we all work. and maybe the trumpy working class would be more clear if the data were divided 40k-70k. but it is clearly there in the data.
Trump wrote:
agip wrote:
holy smokes the educated are ticked off. They are showing up in much larger numbers than before.
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1225806317740285952?s=20The working class folks gave up on the Democrat party a long time ago.
The current Democrat party is full of angry people who are underemployed and they were brainwashed at university to be good little anti-capitalists!
What exactly does “working class” mean? Are there Black working class people? Are there Hispanic working class people? If so, have they given up on the Democrat party?
agip wrote:
agip wrote:
that's some good data, excellent,
it shows that poor people are strongly dem and rich people are basically 50/50.
ok, I'd buy that.
one interesting thing with your data - there is a clear trumpy jump among people in the 50k-99k income zone. That might be the 'working class' bump you are denying.
i loathe the term 'working class' -- we all work. and maybe the trumpy working class would be more clear if the data were divided 40k-70k. but it is clearly there in the data.
I’ll remind you again what you claimed: “ With Trump that switched and Dems are now better off”
You try to manipulate terms any way you want but that statement is wrong. I’ve demonstrated it is wrong.
Ciro wrote:
All of that is a long way from your original claim that “ with Trump that switched and Dems are now better off” - that’s demonstrably not true.
Ciro,
no.
it depends on teh numbers of voters. sure, poor voters seem to be dem. But if there are hardly any poor voters, then their numbers are quite small.
meaning:
for the sake of argument:
1 million voters with incomes under $30k
50 million voters with incomes over $150k
then overall, the raw numbers of poor democrats is very low, and yeah Dems could could still be the richer party than the Rs.
put another way...it's possible for SAT scores to go up in every ethnic group but the average SAT score to go down. Why? if, say, the number of black SAT takers goes up dramatically. Black SAT scores are significantly lower than other ethnic groups...so if the number of black test takers goes up, the average will come down. Even if blacks improve their SAT scores.
It's called simpson's paradox and it's fascinating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox