Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trumps approval by state

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by TonyR View Post

    Interesting theory.

    It was in the 1970s that American politics began to polarise around voters’ levels of educational attainment. The Republican Party, until then a party of tweedy north-easterners, began recruiting less-educated southern whites, alienated by the civil-rights movement. Over time, the partisan gap between college-educated voters and less-educated ones widened. In 2016 it exploded. The Pew Research Centre, a think-tank, found that overall, college graduates favoured Hillary Clinton by 21 percentage points, while those without a degree backed Donald Trump by a seven-point margin. Among whites, the difference is greater: those without a college degree backed Mr Trump over Mrs Clinton by a margin of more than two to one.

    How far did this educational divide determine the outcome of the 2016 election? To answer this question, Michael Sances of Temple University collected data on presidential-election results and education levels in each of America’s 3,000-plus counties from 1972 to 2016. Mr Sances finds that the gap in support for Democratic candidates between the highest- and the lowest-educated counties grew significantly between 2012 and 2016, from about 16 percentage points to 28 percentage points (see chart). This disparity has grown especially quickly in midwestern swing states. In Iowa, for example, Hillary Clinton won 66% of the vote in better-educated counties, up from Barack Obama’s 61% share in 2012, but only 27% in less-educated ones, down from 46%.

    According to Mr Sances, this shift in political support was decisive to Mr Trump’s victory in 2016. Had the counties in the bottom 10% of the education distribution stuck to their voting behaviour in 2012, Mrs Clinton would have been tied with Mr Trump in the electoral college. Had the counties in the bottom 20% done so, she would have won. As the 2020 election approaches, Democrats will have to think seriously about how to bring less-educated voters back to their side. The party’s current focus on left-leaning government programmes such as Medicare for All, which tend to be popular with well-educated liberals but poll poorly among blue-collar white voters, are unlikely to tilt the scales back in their favour.


    https://www.economist.com/graphic-de...he-white-house
    Don't recall all this concern when Democrats pwned High School Dropouts decade after decade.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post

      Don't recall all this concern when Democrats pwned High School Dropouts decade after decade.
      Why would it be a "concern"? From a political standpoint it's a strength. There are far more uneducated than educated. Trump dominated the uneducated white vote. It's why he won. And will be why he wins again, if he does.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by TonyR View Post

        Why would it be a "concern"? From a political standpoint it's a strength. There are far more uneducated than educated. Trump dominated the uneducated white vote. It's why he won. And will be why he wins again, if he does.
        Are you equating being educated with being a winner? I don't buy that at all. Especially when being "educated" (indoctrinated) by these dip****s.

        https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...licans-10-to-/

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by spdirty View Post

          Are you equating being educated with being a winner? I don't buy that at all. Especially when being "educated" (indoctrinated) by these dip****s.

          https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...licans-10-to-/
          Generally, yes. It's one of the primary ways to rise above poverty.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by TonyR View Post

            Generally, yes. It's one of the primary ways to rise above poverty.
            OK, story time. I don't have links or anything, but may God strike me dead if I'm lying. My oldest is 17, and a junior in one of the top public schools in Colorado. He's always been bright, but I had no idea until the last year or so how bright he is. His weighted GPA last semester was a 5.181. He is currently 2nd in a class of about 270. Tomorrow he's making a trip to Arizona State, may get a full ride and major in Business Marketing. He's also on the school DECA team. And he's the star of his team. His last Business Marketing plan was 4th in the state. He is going to make some adjustments and present it in Colorado Springs next month. His goal is to have the best marketing plan in the country. This ****ing kid is literally qualified to go to ****ing Harvard. I have a hard time believing it every time I say it. My oldest kid is qualified to go to Harvard. Not accepted yet, but his grades have qualified him. His potential is pretty much unlimited.

            Yet despite the gift that he has, he may get fired today from his job at Chic-Fil-A. He was sent home yesterday and has to talk to his manager today to discuss his future.

            He has a mentality that because he's smart, because colleges are banging down the door to get him, he is above "shoveling horse ****" as I would call it. And unless he changes his mentality towards actual work, he will be not much more than an educated loser. And I think we have a lot of those today.

            Point is that while education does give you a leg up when it comes to getting a good job, it does not in itself turn you into a winner. And I think a lot of college grads are starting to figure that out. To be a winner is to make it in the real world.
            Last edited by spdirty; 01-22-2020, 09:50 AM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by TonyR View Post

              Generally, yes. It's one of the primary ways to rise above poverty.
              I'd say learning an actual trade would be the primary way to rise above poverty. Millions of people continue their education after high school to never find a job in their field of study. Learn to be a, welder for example, will put you above the poverty line way faster than someone who majored in typewriter maintenance. IE, Liberal Arts and the like. Which then circles back to student loan debt. Kids take on all this debt, and major in something that they won't find a job in, those leading to wanting the skilled trade laborers to foot their student loan bill.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by spdirty View Post
                OK, story time...
                He has an opportunity to get a good education, and therefore an opportunity to be a "winner". And there's a high probability of both, particularly the former. Someone without those opportunities has much lower odds. Yes, he could blow it. And yes, some kids with lesser opportunity can break through and succeed. But those are much less likely outcomes.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by GreatBronco16 View Post

                  I'd say learning an actual trade would be the primary way to rise above poverty. Millions of people continue their education after high school to never find a job in their field of study. Learn to be a, welder for example, will put you above the poverty line way faster than someone who majored in typewriter maintenance. IE, Liberal Arts and the like. Which then circles back to student loan debt. Kids take on all this debt, and major in something that they won't find a job in, those leading to wanting the skilled trade laborers to foot their student loan bill.
                  There's a very strong case to be made for this, yes. I agree. Unfortunately that's not the way our society steers kids. There's a stigma against going that direction, particularly in the upper-middle class and up.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by TonyR View Post

                    There's a very strong case to be made for this, yes. I agree. Unfortunately that's not the way our society steers kids. There's a stigma against going that direction, particularly in the upper-middle class and up.
                    No, that's the way the hard far left is trying to steer the kids. Trade schools do not equal poverty.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by GreatBronco16 View Post

                      No, that's the way the hard far left is trying to steer the kids. Trade schools do not equal poverty.
                      I'm not sure how or why you think the "hard far left" is the problem here. People generally want their kids to go to college and get professional degrees. I'm not saying that's the way it should be, I'm saying that's the way it is. I fully agree that there are a lot of good jobs in the trades. That's just not what our society generally wants for our kids for whatever reason. STEM schools, for example, are seen as superior to trade schools. And the better students, and wealthier students, go to private schools and STEM schools. I'm not sure why you think there's something to disagree with here. I'm stating fact, not opinion. Personally I think trades are a great option for kids who are so inclined. I have nothing against that.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by TonyR View Post

                        He has an opportunity to get a good education, and therefore an opportunity to be a "winner". And there's a high probability of both, particularly the former. Someone without those opportunities has much lower odds. Yes, he could blow it. And yes, some kids with lesser opportunity can break through and succeed. But those are much less likely outcomes.
                        Ok, so we agree that being well educated does not automatically make you a winner, though it does give you a better opportunity.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by spdirty View Post

                          Are you equating being educated with being a winner? I don't buy that at all. Especially when being "educated" (indoctrinated) by these dip****s.

                          https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...licans-10-to-/
                          Whenever I see someone complain about 'indoctrination' in higher ed I just laugh my ass off. I know what it really means, which is 'I'm afraid my kids might be exposed to ideas I don't approve of!'

                          University is specifically a place designed to broaden horizons of the students. They are not vocational institutions, though they typically are a good qualification for someone that is actually employable and are often a prerequisite for more complex vocational schools (medicine, law, etc.). Exposing people to ideas is not 'indoctrination' it's what we call 'becoming educated'.

                          Not going to college does not make you a loser. Being so small and closed minded that you think being exposed to other ideas than the ones you already have is 'indoctrinarion' DOES make you a loser.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Fedaykin View Post

                            Whenever I see someone complain about 'indoctrination' in higher ed I just laugh my ass off. I know what it really means, which is 'I'm afraid my kids might be exposed to ideas I don't approve of!'

                            University is specifically a place designed to broaden horizons of the students. They are not vocational institutions, though they typically are a good qualification for someone that is actually employable and are often a prerequisite for more complex vocational schools (medicine, law, etc.). Exposing people to ideas is not 'indoctrination' it's what we call 'becoming educated'.

                            Not going to college does not make you a loser. Being so small and closed minded that you think being exposed to other ideas than the ones you already have is 'indoctrinarion' DOES make you a loser.
                            You can definitely tell who's never been to college.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by W*GS View Post

                              You can definitely tell who's never been to college.
                              Where would tRump be without that particular demographic?

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN View Post

                                Where would tRump be without that particular demographic?
                                At least that demographic didn't get hoodwinked by his fake university, tho.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X