RUSSIA/РОССИЯ THREAD—ASSANGE CHRGD W/ SPYING—DJT IMPEACHED TWICE-US TREASURY SANCTS KILIMNIK AS RUSSIAN AGNT
- Thread starter ☑︎#VoteDemocrat
- Start date
:ALERTRED:
Trump Voters Driven by Fear of Losing Status, Not Economic Anxiety, Study Finds
Trump Voters Driven by Fear of Losing Status, Not Economic Anxiety, Study Finds
By NIRAJ CHOKSHIAPRIL 24, 2018
A Trump supporter at a campaign rally in Sacramento in June 2016. A new study found that many Trump voters were driven by fear of losing their status in society. Damon Winter/The New York Times
Ever since Donald J. Trump began his improbable political rise, many pundits have credited his appeal among white, Christian and male voters to “economic anxiety.” Hobbled by unemployment and locked out of the recovery, those voters turned out in force to send Mr. Trump, and a message, to Washington.
Or so that narrative goes.
A study published on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences questions that explanation, the latest to suggest that Trump voters weren’t driven by anger over the past, but rather fear of what may come. White, Christian and male voters, the study suggests, turned to Mr. Trump because they felt their status was at risk.
“It’s much more of a symbolic threat that people feel,’’ said Diana C. Mutz, the author of the study and a political science and communications professor at the University of Pennsylvania, where she directs the Institute for the Study of Citizens and Politics. “It’s not a threat to their own economic well-being; it’s a threat to their group’s dominance in our country over all.”
The study is not the first to cast doubt on the prevailing economic anxiety theory. Last year, a Public Religion Research Institute survey of more than 3,000 people also found that Mr. Trump’s appeal could better be explained by a fear of cultural displacement.
In her study, Dr. Mutz sought to answer two questions: Is there evidence to support the economic anxiety argument, and did the fear of losing social dominance drive some voters to Mr. Trump? To find answers, she analyzed survey data from a nationally representative group of about 1,200 voters polled in 2012 and 2016.
In both years, participants were asked the same wide-ranging set of questions. Party loyalty overwhelmingly explained how most people voted, but Dr. Mutz’s statistical analysis focused on those who bucked the trend, switching their support to the Republican candidate, Mr. Trump, in 2016.
Leaving Behind the ‘Left Behind’ Theory
Even before conducting her analysis, Dr. Mutz noted two reasons for skepticism of the economic anxiety, or “left behind,” theory. First, the economy was improving before the 2016 presidential campaign. Second, while research has suggested that voters are swayed by the economy, there is little evidence that their own financial situation similarly influences their choices at the ballot box.
The analysis offered even more reason for doubt.
Losing a job or income between 2012 and 2016 did not make a person any more likely to support Mr. Trump, Dr. Mutz found. Neither did the mere perception that one’s financial situation had worsened. A person’s opinion on how trade affected personal finances had little bearing on political preferences. Neither did unemployment or the density of manufacturing jobs in one’s area.
“It wasn’t people in those areas that were switching, those folks were already voting Republican,” Dr. Mutz said.
For further evidence, Dr. Mutz also analyzed a separate survey, conducted in 2016 by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. It showed that anxieties about retirement, education and medical bills also had little impact on whether a person supported Mr. Trump.
Last year’s Public Religion Research Institute report went even further, finding a link, albeit a weak one, between poor white, working-class Americans and support for Hillary Clinton.
Status Under Threat: ‘Things Have Changed’
While economic anxiety did not explain Mr. Trump’s appeal, Dr. Mutz found reason instead to credit those whose thinking changed in ways that reflected a growing sense of racial or global threat.
In 2012, voters perceived little difference between themselves and the candidates on trade. But, by 2016, the voters had moved slightly right, while they perceived Mr. Trump as moving about as far right as Mrs. Clinton had moved left. As a result, the voters, in a defensive crouch, found themselves closer to Mr. Trump.
On the threat posed by China, voters hardly moved between 2012 and 2016, but while they perceived both presidential candidates as being to their left in 2012, they found Mr. Trump as having moved just to their right by 2016, again placing them closer to the Republican candidate than the Democratic one.
In both cases, the findings revealed a fear that American global dominance was in danger, a belief that benefited Mr. Trump and the Republican Party.
“The shift toward an antitrade stance was a particularly effective strategy for capitalizing on a public experiencing status threat due to race as well as globalization,” Dr. Mutz wrote in the study.
Her survey also assessed “social dominance orientation,” a common psychological measure of a person’s belief in hierarchy as necessary and inherent to a society. People who exhibited a growing belief in such group dominance were also more likely to move toward Mr. Trump, Dr. Mutz found, reflecting their hope that the status quo be protected.
“It used to be a pretty good deal to be a white, Christian male in America, but things have changed and I think they do feel threatened,” Dr. Mutz said.
The other surveys supported the cultural anxiety explanation, too.
For example, Trump support was linked to a belief that high-status groups, such as whites, Christians or men, faced more discrimination than low-status groups, like minorities, Muslims or women, according to Dr. Mutz’s analysis of the University of Chicago study.
What does it matter which kind of anxiety — cultural or economic — explains Mr. Trump’s appeal?
If wrong, the prevailing economic theory lends unfounded virtue to his victory, crediting it to the disaffected masses, Dr. Mutz argues. More important, she said, it would teach the wrong lesson to elected officials, who often look to voting patterns in enacting new policy.
Trump Voters Driven by Fear of Losing Status, Not Economic Anxiety, Study Finds
By NIRAJ CHOKSHIAPRIL 24, 2018
A Trump supporter at a campaign rally in Sacramento in June 2016. A new study found that many Trump voters were driven by fear of losing their status in society. Damon Winter/The New York Times
Ever since Donald J. Trump began his improbable political rise, many pundits have credited his appeal among white, Christian and male voters to “economic anxiety.” Hobbled by unemployment and locked out of the recovery, those voters turned out in force to send Mr. Trump, and a message, to Washington.
Or so that narrative goes.
A study published on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences questions that explanation, the latest to suggest that Trump voters weren’t driven by anger over the past, but rather fear of what may come. White, Christian and male voters, the study suggests, turned to Mr. Trump because they felt their status was at risk.
“It’s much more of a symbolic threat that people feel,’’ said Diana C. Mutz, the author of the study and a political science and communications professor at the University of Pennsylvania, where she directs the Institute for the Study of Citizens and Politics. “It’s not a threat to their own economic well-being; it’s a threat to their group’s dominance in our country over all.”
The study is not the first to cast doubt on the prevailing economic anxiety theory. Last year, a Public Religion Research Institute survey of more than 3,000 people also found that Mr. Trump’s appeal could better be explained by a fear of cultural displacement.
In her study, Dr. Mutz sought to answer two questions: Is there evidence to support the economic anxiety argument, and did the fear of losing social dominance drive some voters to Mr. Trump? To find answers, she analyzed survey data from a nationally representative group of about 1,200 voters polled in 2012 and 2016.
In both years, participants were asked the same wide-ranging set of questions. Party loyalty overwhelmingly explained how most people voted, but Dr. Mutz’s statistical analysis focused on those who bucked the trend, switching their support to the Republican candidate, Mr. Trump, in 2016.
Leaving Behind the ‘Left Behind’ Theory
Even before conducting her analysis, Dr. Mutz noted two reasons for skepticism of the economic anxiety, or “left behind,” theory. First, the economy was improving before the 2016 presidential campaign. Second, while research has suggested that voters are swayed by the economy, there is little evidence that their own financial situation similarly influences their choices at the ballot box.
The analysis offered even more reason for doubt.
Losing a job or income between 2012 and 2016 did not make a person any more likely to support Mr. Trump, Dr. Mutz found. Neither did the mere perception that one’s financial situation had worsened. A person’s opinion on how trade affected personal finances had little bearing on political preferences. Neither did unemployment or the density of manufacturing jobs in one’s area.
“It wasn’t people in those areas that were switching, those folks were already voting Republican,” Dr. Mutz said.
For further evidence, Dr. Mutz also analyzed a separate survey, conducted in 2016 by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. It showed that anxieties about retirement, education and medical bills also had little impact on whether a person supported Mr. Trump.
Last year’s Public Religion Research Institute report went even further, finding a link, albeit a weak one, between poor white, working-class Americans and support for Hillary Clinton.
Status Under Threat: ‘Things Have Changed’
While economic anxiety did not explain Mr. Trump’s appeal, Dr. Mutz found reason instead to credit those whose thinking changed in ways that reflected a growing sense of racial or global threat.
In 2012, voters perceived little difference between themselves and the candidates on trade. But, by 2016, the voters had moved slightly right, while they perceived Mr. Trump as moving about as far right as Mrs. Clinton had moved left. As a result, the voters, in a defensive crouch, found themselves closer to Mr. Trump.
On the threat posed by China, voters hardly moved between 2012 and 2016, but while they perceived both presidential candidates as being to their left in 2012, they found Mr. Trump as having moved just to their right by 2016, again placing them closer to the Republican candidate than the Democratic one.
In both cases, the findings revealed a fear that American global dominance was in danger, a belief that benefited Mr. Trump and the Republican Party.
“The shift toward an antitrade stance was a particularly effective strategy for capitalizing on a public experiencing status threat due to race as well as globalization,” Dr. Mutz wrote in the study.
Her survey also assessed “social dominance orientation,” a common psychological measure of a person’s belief in hierarchy as necessary and inherent to a society. People who exhibited a growing belief in such group dominance were also more likely to move toward Mr. Trump, Dr. Mutz found, reflecting their hope that the status quo be protected.
“It used to be a pretty good deal to be a white, Christian male in America, but things have changed and I think they do feel threatened,” Dr. Mutz said.
The other surveys supported the cultural anxiety explanation, too.
For example, Trump support was linked to a belief that high-status groups, such as whites, Christians or men, faced more discrimination than low-status groups, like minorities, Muslims or women, according to Dr. Mutz’s analysis of the University of Chicago study.
What does it matter which kind of anxiety — cultural or economic — explains Mr. Trump’s appeal?
If wrong, the prevailing economic theory lends unfounded virtue to his victory, crediting it to the disaffected masses, Dr. Mutz argues. More important, she said, it would teach the wrong lesson to elected officials, who often look to voting patterns in enacting new policy.
choc_cardigan
Squad
So I know there are some white Christian Male voters lurking this thread. You have probably seen me ask this before, but I'm genuinely curious. When and why did you feel threatened to be a white man in America?
When — if Ever — Will the Super Bowl Champion Eagles Visit the White House?
When — if Ever — Will the Super Bowl Champion Eagles Visit the White House?
By KEN BELSON and MICHAEL D. SHEARAPRIL 23, 2018
Rodney McLeod, Malcolm Jenkins and Chris Long of the Eagles during the national anthem before a game last season. Rich Schultz/Getty Images
Springtime in Washington usually brings the blooming of cherry blossom trees and a White House visit from the Super Bowl champions. Peak bloom happened weeks ago, but there’s still no sign of the Philadelphia Eagles, the N.F.L.’s current titleholders.
Nearly three months after they won their first Super Bowl title, the Eagles have not announced details of a White House visit, raising questions about whether many members of the team, which has one of the most liberal owners in the N.F.L. and several prominent players who have said they oppose President Trump’s policies, want to be seen shaking hands with the president.
A visit is being planned, a White House spokeswoman said on Monday.
“We have been in conversations with the Eagles about timing and are working with them to make it happen,” said Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary. “We hope to have something finalized in the next couple of weeks.”
The league turned into a political piñata last year after the president lambasted the league for not forcing players to stand for the national anthem. The attacks prompted some fans to walk out of stadiums because of the protests by players, who were trying to highlight social injustice and police brutality against African-Americans.
The Eagles are the first team to win the Super Bowl since Mr. Trump first attacked the league last September, when he referred generically to a protesting player as “son of a bytch,” and urged owners to fire players who did not stand for the anthem. His comments escalated the issue of protests into a roiling national debate and, for several weeks, inspired more players to protest.
“We have been in contact with White House representatives and are currently discussing the logistics of an upcoming visit to Washington,” a spokesman for the Eagles said on Monday, acknowledging publicly for the first time that the team had been invited. “We are honored to receive this invitation and view this not only as an opportunity to be recognized for our on-field accomplishments, but also as an opportunity to engage in productive dialogue with the leaders of our country.”
There is no formal routine for the scheduling of White House visits, though most Super Bowl winners receive an invitation soon after the game, and visits are common in March or April, when players are together but their schedules are not as hectic as they would be during the season. Last year, the New England Patriots went to the White House on April 19.
Some teams choose to visit the White House later in the year, particularly if they can combine it with a trip to play against the Redskins or the Ravens, who are based near Washington.
The Eagles will probably have several prominent no-shows if the team makes the trip from Philadelphia. After their victory over the Patriots in February, some top players, including safety Malcolm Jenkins, defensive lineman Chris Long and wide receiver Torrey Smith, said they would not visit the White House if invited.
In an interview on CNN, Mr. Smith said he would not go to a party if the host were a sexist or a racist or insulted his friends. “So why is it any different when this person has the title of president of the United States?” he said. “It’s really that simple to me. I don’t think it’s really something that I personally feel inclined to be involved with.”
Jeffrey Lurie, owner of the Philadelphia Eagles. He called the Trump presidency "disastrous" in a private meeting with players and league executives. Chad Batka for The New York Times
Mr. Smith added that there were “plenty of guys who said they do not plan on going” to the White House, a tradition that became an annual event during Ronald Reagan’s presidency more than three decades ago.
Two members of the Eagles, Mr. Long and LeGarrette Blount, declined to visitthe White House last year when they were with the Patriots.
The Eagles’ owner, Jeffrey Lurie, is considered one of the most liberal in the league, and he is sympathetic to what Mr. Jenkins and other players have been trying to achieve. Long before he bought the team, he earned a doctoral degree in social policy and lectured on topics like incarceration rates. In the lobby at the Eagles’ training complex, he put large photos of Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela and Jonas Salk, rather than sepia-tone images of the team’s best former players, to remind visitors of the team’s higher mission.
Mr. Lurie openly supported Mr. Jenkins and other players who have protested, though he encouraged them to hone their message and not be sidetracked by people accusing them of being unpatriotic.
According to the Federal Election Commission, in 2015, Mr. Lurie donated $2,700 to Hillary for America, a group supporting Hillary Clinton, as well as to the N.F.L. political action committee.
Mr. Lurie has also made his political leanings known in private league meetings, including last October at N.F.L. headquarters. Weeks after Mr. Trump attacked the league, several dozen owners, players and league executives met to discuss a plan to donate money to an array of groups fighting social injustice. At one point, a player said that it was difficult to trust the owners because they supported Mr. Trump.
Mr. Lurie took exception.
“Another fact I want to throw out there: Many of us have no interest in supporting President Trump,” Mr. Lurie said, according to a recording of the meeting obtained by The New York Times. “Yes, there are some. There are some players who do, too.”
“But this is not where you brandish a group of people because they own assets in a sport we love, supporting what many of us perceive as, you know, one disastrous presidency,” he said, using a vulgarity to emphasize “disastrous,” then adding, “Don’t quote me.”
The Trump White House has been the source of tension with other sports teams. In September, after Stephen Curry of the N.B.A. champion Golden State Warriors said that he and his teammates were considering a boycott of the visit, Mr. Trump announced that the team would not be invited.
The history of sports teams visiting the White House dates to the 19th century, when baseball teams were invited. President Jimmy Carter is believed to be the first to invite an N.F.L. team, when he welcomed the Pittsburgh Steelers in 1980. The visits became a yearly tradition during the Reagan administration, and nearly every Super Bowl champion since then has received an invitation.
The few exceptions include the Giants, in 1991, who did not go because of the first Gulf War, and the Denver Broncos in 1999, presumably because President Bill Clinton was embroiled in impeachment proceedings.
mastermind
Rest In Power Kobe
Trump Voters Driven by Fear of Losing Status, Not Economic Anxiety, Study Finds
Trump Voters Driven by Fear of Losing Status, Not Economic Anxiety, Study Finds
By NIRAJ CHOKSHIAPRIL 24, 2018
A Trump supporter at a campaign rally in Sacramento in June 2016. A new study found that many Trump voters were driven by fear of losing their status in society. Damon Winter/The New York Times
Ever since Donald J. Trump began his improbable political rise, many pundits have credited his appeal among white, Christian and male voters to “economic anxiety.” Hobbled by unemployment and locked out of the recovery, those voters turned out in force to send Mr. Trump, and a message, to Washington.
Or so that narrative goes.
A study published on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences questions that explanation, the latest to suggest that Trump voters weren’t driven by anger over the past, but rather fear of what may come. White, Christian and male voters, the study suggests, turned to Mr. Trump because they felt their status was at risk.
“It’s much more of a symbolic threat that people feel,’’ said Diana C. Mutz, the author of the study and a political science and communications professor at the University of Pennsylvania, where she directs the Institute for the Study of Citizens and Politics. “It’s not a threat to their own economic well-being; it’s a threat to their group’s dominance in our country over all.”
The study is not the first to cast doubt on the prevailing economic anxiety theory. Last year, a Public Religion Research Institute survey of more than 3,000 people also found that Mr. Trump’s appeal could better be explained by a fear of cultural displacement.
In her study, Dr. Mutz sought to answer two questions: Is there evidence to support the economic anxiety argument, and did the fear of losing social dominance drive some voters to Mr. Trump? To find answers, she analyzed survey data from a nationally representative group of about 1,200 voters polled in 2012 and 2016.
In both years, participants were asked the same wide-ranging set of questions. Party loyalty overwhelmingly explained how most people voted, but Dr. Mutz’s statistical analysis focused on those who bucked the trend, switching their support to the Republican candidate, Mr. Trump, in 2016.
Leaving Behind the ‘Left Behind’ Theory
Even before conducting her analysis, Dr. Mutz noted two reasons for skepticism of the economic anxiety, or “left behind,” theory. First, the economy was improving before the 2016 presidential campaign. Second, while research has suggested that voters are swayed by the economy, there is little evidence that their own financial situation similarly influences their choices at the ballot box.
The analysis offered even more reason for doubt.
Losing a job or income between 2012 and 2016 did not make a person any more likely to support Mr. Trump, Dr. Mutz found. Neither did the mere perception that one’s financial situation had worsened. A person’s opinion on how trade affected personal finances had little bearing on political preferences. Neither did unemployment or the density of manufacturing jobs in one’s area.
“It wasn’t people in those areas that were switching, those folks were already voting Republican,” Dr. Mutz said.
For further evidence, Dr. Mutz also analyzed a separate survey, conducted in 2016 by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. It showed that anxieties about retirement, education and medical bills also had little impact on whether a person supported Mr. Trump.
Last year’s Public Religion Research Institute report went even further, finding a link, albeit a weak one, between poor white, working-class Americans and support for Hillary Clinton.
Status Under Threat: ‘Things Have Changed’
While economic anxiety did not explain Mr. Trump’s appeal, Dr. Mutz found reason instead to credit those whose thinking changed in ways that reflected a growing sense of racial or global threat.
In 2012, voters perceived little difference between themselves and the candidates on trade. But, by 2016, the voters had moved slightly right, while they perceived Mr. Trump as moving about as far right as Mrs. Clinton had moved left. As a result, the voters, in a defensive crouch, found themselves closer to Mr. Trump.
On the threat posed by China, voters hardly moved between 2012 and 2016, but while they perceived both presidential candidates as being to their left in 2012, they found Mr. Trump as having moved just to their right by 2016, again placing them closer to the Republican candidate than the Democratic one.
In both cases, the findings revealed a fear that American global dominance was in danger, a belief that benefited Mr. Trump and the Republican Party.
“The shift toward an antitrade stance was a particularly effective strategy for capitalizing on a public experiencing status threat due to race as well as globalization,” Dr. Mutz wrote in the study.
Her survey also assessed “social dominance orientation,” a common psychological measure of a person’s belief in hierarchy as necessary and inherent to a society. People who exhibited a growing belief in such group dominance were also more likely to move toward Mr. Trump, Dr. Mutz found, reflecting their hope that the status quo be protected.
“It used to be a pretty good deal to be a white, Christian male in America, but things have changed and I think they do feel threatened,” Dr. Mutz said.
The other surveys supported the cultural anxiety explanation, too.
For example, Trump support was linked to a belief that high-status groups, such as whites, Christians or men, faced more discrimination than low-status groups, like minorities, Muslims or women, according to Dr. Mutz’s analysis of the University of Chicago study.
What does it matter which kind of anxiety — cultural or economic — explains Mr. Trump’s appeal?
If wrong, the prevailing economic theory lends unfounded virtue to his victory, crediting it to the disaffected masses, Dr. Mutz argues. More important, she said, it would teach the wrong lesson to elected officials, who often look to voting patterns in enacting new policy.
File this one under Duh.
AZBeauty
Stop lyin' nicca.
just updated my twitter settings
So did I, 10 mins later, im locked out and cant get back in. It says my account showed suspicious activity
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Last edited:
Yeah, the "economic anxiety" shyt has been in the bushes for a while now.
PoorAndDangerous
Superstar
i love how when well-to-do people engage in this activity its termed "improperly dispensing drugs"
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
i love how when well-to-do people engage in this activity its termed "improperly dispensing drugs"
fukking narco terrorist is what he was I hear
