You won’t find out from Rachel: Tuesday night, we watched Rachel Maddow report Terry McAuliffe’s win in Virginia.
As she did, she repeated a peculiar claim three times: “the Beltway press” had been mystified by the gender gap which appeared in Virginia polling. They just couldn't figure it out!
For details, see yesterday’s post.
That claim seemed highly unlikely to us. As it turned out, Maddow never provided any examples. But as Maddow spoke on Election Night, we were puzzled by the relatively small gender gap which was being displayed on the screen.
There was a gender gap in Virginia, but it turned out to be substantially less than the gap which had been predicted. As it turned out, McAuliffe won among female voters by nine points, 51-42. He lost male voters by three points, 48-45.
That’s a gender gap—but in the Washington Post’s final poll, McAuliffe was winning female voters by a walloping 24 points, while losing male voters by one. That poll produced a lot of commentary in the last days of the race.
Anyone can get a poll wrong, of course. But much of that margin had gone away as Maddow announced the outcome on Tuesday night.
Weird! As Maddow spoke, a chyron showed McAuliffe winning female voter by only eight points. We were puzzled by the narrow margin. But Maddow never noted that this was less than polling had indicated.
Last night, it seemed to us that she buried the info again. Here’s what happened:
When you analyze the Virginia voting by race, a rather strange thing occurs. It turns out that Ken Cuccinelli actually won the white female vote. And he won it by a very large margin, 54-38.
How did McAuliffe manage to win the overall female vote? Easy! Black women favored him overwhelmingly, 91-7.
For the exit poll figures, click here.
In close elections, white voters almost always favor the GOP. Black voters typically vote Democratic by roughly 90 percent.
Still, it’s a bit surprising to see that large white female vote for Cuccinelli, given his throwback views about reproductive rights. Plus Governor Ultrasound, whose nickname “really caught on.”
Luckily, viewers of Maddow’s show won’t have to ponder that white female vote. Rachel went right ahead on Tuesday night as if nothing had happened to McAuliffe’s predicted margin among woman voters.
As of last night, nothing had changed. She told the inspiring story of the Virginia women’s vote in this peculiar fashion:
MADDOW (11/6/13): The overall margin of victory for Democrat Terry McAuliffe over Republican Ken Cuccinelli in the governor`s race was three points. But when you break out the exit polling, it was the gender gap that really gave McAuliffe the win.Rachel went to tell us about Cuccinelli’s horrible record. But do you see what happened there?
He took the Virginia lady vote overall by nine points, 51-42. He took the African-American vote by an astonishing 84-point margin. It was 91-7 among African-American women in Virginia.
But we kind of knew it was coming. The pre-election polling foretold both the win for Terry McAuliffe and the big problem for the Republican candidate with women voters specifically. Ken Cuccinelli is a life-long and crusading social conservative activist.
We the rubes were allowed to hear about McAuliffe's astonishing margin among black female voters, which wasn't all that astonishing. (In 2009, black women supported the Democratic candidate for governor, 90-10. For that exit poll, click here.)
We got to learn about that astonishing, feel-good vote. But the depressing vote by all those white women somehow got disappeared.
We viewers weren’t told what white women did. Keeping it simple, Rachel told us that “the lady vote” had given McAuliffe the win.
That seemed kind of silly and fun. “We kind of knew it was coming!”
Technically, none of that was false! But increasingly, Maddow’s program is becoming an hour of feel-good tribal propaganda and highly selective information. Last night, it happened again:
We got to hear what black women did. White women got disappeared.
That white women’s vote seems newsworthy to us, if a bit depressing. It seems to us that Maddow was keeping her viewers barefoot and clueless—again.
So it tends to goes on this declining program. Was this perhaps another case of Us behaving like Them?
How big was the gender gap: In some instances, different people mean different things by the term “gender gap.”
Traditionally, that term refers to the difference in the way men and women vote in a given election. If we use that definition, there was no real gender gap among Virginia's black voters.
Black men favored McAuliffe, 90-10. Among black women, the margin was similar, 91-7.
Among white voters, there actually was a gender gap. White women favored Cuccinelli by 16 points. White men favored him by a larger 25-point margin, 58-33.
Especially given all the hype, that white female vote seems striking to us. Good news! If you keep watching the Maddow show, you won’t have to be told!
21 comments so far today total on four posts.
ReplyDeleteTime to bring up Zimmerman again, Bob.
no! its time to all together sing a sea shanty!!!
Deletei'll start, you join in as you feel it.
What do you do with a drunken sailor,
What do you do with a drunken sailor,
What do you do with a drunken sailor,
Earl-eye in the morning!
Way hay and up she rises
Way hay and up she rises
Way hay and up she rises
Earl-eye in the morning
Shave his belly with a rusty razor,
Shave his belly with a rusty razor,
Shave his belly with a rusty razor,
Earl-eye in the morning!
Put him in the hold with the Captain's daughter,
Put him in the hold with the Captain's daughter,
Put him in the hold with the Captain's daughter,
Earl-eye in the morning!
What do you do with a drunken sailor,
What do you do with a drunken sailor,
What do you do with a drunken sailor,
Earl-eye in the morning!
Put him the back of the paddy wagon,
Put him the back of the paddy wagon,
Put him the back of the paddy wagon,
Earl-eye in the morning!
Throw him in the lock-up 'til he's sober,
Throw him in the lock-up 'til he's sober,
Throw him in the lock-up 'til he's sober,
Earl-eye in the morning!
What do you do with a drunken sailor,
What do you do with a drunken sailor,
What do you do with a drunken sailor,
Earl-eye in the morning!
What do you do with a drunken sailor,
What do you do with a drunken sailor,
What do you do with a drunken sailor,
Earl-eye in the morning!
While it is true that the names George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin draw forth comments from a plethora of experts on Florida jurisprudence, does Bob give a shit how many comments he elicits?
ReplyDeleteTerrific and important analysis.
ReplyDeleteBob, I would never have realized what happened were it not for this analysis. That white women should have favored Cuccinelli is stunning to me given what I had read of projections before the election.
ReplyDeleteVirtually every media source not a member of the mainstream claims to provide something the mainstream isn't providing. The Nation magazine claims to provide insight missing from the mainstream press. . Rush Limbaugh claims to provide insight missing from the mainstream press. Heck, even Bob Somerby claims to provide insight missing from the mainstream press.
ReplyDeleteThat makes sense. If they didn't claim to have something different, why wouldn't we just rely on the mainstream media?
The Cooch was a classic example of what I call the Hobbesian Republican candidate: nasty, brutish, and short on intellect, decency, and integrity. The lesson for Republicans is that they can't rely on Hobbesian candidates to win, even in the south and even against opponents who aren't especially strong. The lesson for Democrats is that Hobbesians aren't automatic losers either, and they'd better get started funding teahadists and libertarians to run as spoilers in general elections.
ReplyDeleteTDH is right. The overall gender gap in Virginia doesn't tell the story. No such gap existed for black voters, and it was small for white voters. Had the Cooch done as well among white female voters as he did among white male voters, the race would have been extremely close, but given the margin of error in exit polls, that might not have been enough. However, if the Cooch had been able to split the vote of Sarvis, the Libertarian, weighted along ideological grounds, he probably would be the governor-elect.
These vote reports of how white women voted are from exit polls. We know white males vote a straight Neanderthal ticket. So, how many white women stated how they voted in the company of white males whom they may not have wanted to hear how they really voted?.
ReplyDeleteGood work BOB. Now I want you to really piss off some liberals by stating the obvious. White liberals voters are not now, and have not been the "base" of the Democratic party for some time. Blacks are.
ReplyDeleteKZ
Bob, you are also shoving under the rug that SINGLE WOMEN favored Terry-M. 68%-32% that was also part of the story. And, the unfortunate fact is that in some parts of this country married white women still vote as their husbands vote and ask him for his opinion. People who are active in GOTV, have reported this unfortunate result.
ReplyDeleteI'm very happy Terry M won. His win is meaningful for Virginia's daughters (even if some of them are so conservative they put their ideology before their own self-interest) so they can have autonomy over their own bodies and won't get dragged back to the inquisition.
Nobody votes according to what their husbands tell them. You're a sexist pig and an idiot. Therefore you probably identify as "progressive."
DeleteAnother glorious piece of performance art. Why would liberals be pissed off about white liberals not being the "base" of the Democratic party? Especially in a Virginia election.
ReplyDeleteAccording to exit polls, McAuliffe ended up with 36% of the white vote, which was itself 72% of voters. So the white part of McAuliffe's coalition weighed in at about 26% of the voters. Only 20% of all voters identified themselves as liberal. Assuming that percentage applies to white voters as well, likely an overestimate, the moderate-to-conservative portion of the white part of McAuliffe's coalition comes in at about 20%. Black voters made of 20% of voters, and McAuliffe got 90% of them, or 18%.
Go ahead. Pull the other one.
Your analysis is extremely strange to say the least. Perhaps it is an error in wording rather than your understanding.
DeleteYou assume liberals are equally represented among white voters as in the polled electorate as a whole, which is probably inaccurate as you note. But lets use that number.
Both blacks and self professesed liberals voted about 90% for McAuliffe. That would mean white liberals (20% of the 72%) made up 14.4 of the electorate and white liberal McAuliffe voters made up 13% of the total electorate. Since they voted 90% for McAuliffe, who got 48% of the total vote, they comprise 27% of McAuliffe's vote.
Black voters, on the other hand, made up 20% of the electorate, and voted 90% for McAuliffe. That would mean
black McAuliffe voters comprised 18% of the total electorate, not 18% of McAuliffe's vote which your analysis, perhaps through poor word choice, implies. McAuliffe got 48% of the total vote, so blacks made up 37.5% of the McAuliffe vote.
Your analysis of the white moderate-conservative vote is interesting, but since they were the voters who had the greatest swing between the last gubernatorial election and this one, in an electorate in which 31% identified with neither party, it is safe to assume they should not be overly relied upon when someone is trying to determine which elements of the Democratic base are the most numerous and reliable.
I appreciate your effort.
KZ
There's little doubt that black voters are the most reliable Democratic voters, in part because the Democratic Party actually welcomes them and in part because of repellent Republican policies. But there just aren't that many of them. It's easy to overlook that fact by looking at the percentages of the McAuliffe's vote. To win, Democratic candidates have to put together a diverse coalition of the voting population, including segments of the white voting population. These latter won't come close to the Republican share, but they need to be as large as that reliable black part.
DeleteYou have a point that the Virginia election isn't the best standard for determining the Democratic base. That's because the Cooch was so bad he managed to warp the electoral space-time continuum.
There's little doubt that black voters are the most reliable Democratic voters, in part because the Democratic Party actually welcomes them
DeleteThe same reason white voters are the most reliable Republican voters. Because you refer to their policy views as "repellant" instead of different from yours.
White voters are the most reliable Republican voters because Republicans have scared them into voting Republican while scaring the rest into the Democratic Party.
DeleteJust look at you -- terrified of that "horde" of bastards that will overwhelm us good ol' white folks in a hundred years or so.
I'm not sure I understand your "Because" sentence fragment. White voters are the most reliable Republicans because I refer to Republican policies as repellant? It's doubtful that any voters pay any attention to me.
But yeah, legitimate rape, self-deportation, health care via emergency room, voter suppression, deliberately damaging the economy by threatening default, homophobia, transvaginal ultrasounds, witch hunts against university climate researchers -- all that I find repellant.
YMMV, and evidently does.
White, black who cares? A teabagger lost. Good enough for me. Lets have more of those losses.
ReplyDeleteIt's an old story --- many white folks have been voting against their economic interests for decades. I've given up on them. Demographics and actuarial tables are taking care of this problem.
ReplyDeleteNo doubt subtle minds here will proffer tortured analysis of why the obvious isn't true. Fine --- knock yourselves out, make yourselves feel real smart and sophisticated.
I come from a long line of folks who were taught to put many things, especially ideals, above any economic interest (and personal safety, in some instances).
DeleteDemographics are taking care of a lot of things. Including destroying the futures of your children and theirs.
DeleteConfused, the day I start worrying about the "plutocracy" and my bank account, over what I know to be right, is the day of my defeat.
DeleteAnonymous @12:10P,
DeleteDemographics are destroying your image of the future. But that's different.
deadrat, I suppose that's true. My (idealized) image of the future would include many more generations enjoying the freedoms and opportunities created by economic prosperity and military strength. It isn't going to happen and it is because the minority and single female demographic will destroy it, and not by virtue of their blackness and single female-ness but by virtue of leaders including white, out of touch progressives selling them utopian ignorance in place of philosophy such as that government can successfully take the place of family, work, and other forms of personal responsibility without destroying freedom and quality of life. Intelligent people who are also aware of history understand they are wrong. An ethic of envy and a goal of bringing everyone down to the same level of misery might be your idealized image of the future.
DeleteAnonymous @2:59P,
DeleteLet me guess. You're white and middle class, right? Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just that your fears of about a minority future are based on the myth of the Golden Age of White Prosperity.
Please don't lecture me on awareness of history. The damage done to America's future is brought to you by the crazed polices of the WPE (two losing unfunded wars and the crash of the financial system) and teahadist reactionaries. Read Paul Krugman today to find out why these policies are good for a 7% annual blow to the economy for the foreseeable future.
Please don't lecture me on black and female citizens abandoning "personal responsibility" for "utopian ignorance." I figure most of them would settle for the median income in this country returning to 2007 levels.
Please don't lecture me on the "ethic of envy." The top 1% own 42% of the wealth in this country; the top 5% own 72%. I don't think we have to worry about bringing everyone down to the same level, certainly not by asking those making $400K a year to return to the tax levels of the 1990s.
Face it, the '50s are over, and although those years may look good to you in your rose-colored rear view mirror, they just weren't all that great for everybody.
Ah of course. "The 50's weren't good and if we go back to a time during which there were strong family and work ethics across all racial and income divides, we therefore go back to accepting discrimination against women and minorities."
DeleteNice logic. You get a pass because you're probably in college. When you have a stake in the future, you'll change your mind and understand that pointing blame at some destructive and reversible factors does not negate other factors that will devastate cultures and civilizations.
Unfortunately the 1% didn't cause the 50% illegitimacy rate (75% among blacks) and the culture of dependency that keeps blacks and single women voting Democratic.
Braindead white progressives did, whose idea of progress is, like their historical predecessors', everyone together in misery beats most together in security and prosperity.
I'm the oldest whore on the block, Sparky, and I haven't been on my college campus since I graduated over forty years ago.
DeleteYou don't get a pass for vanquishing your straw men. Nothing I've said has any implication for "strong family and work ethics." That's your bullshit excuse for misremembering a golden age that never was.
The "culture of dependency" is the one that benefits the 1%: government bailouts of banks and insurance companies, farm subsidies to agribusiness, etc. ad infinitum et nauseam. Black single mothers didn't bring the US financial system to a near melt-down. People on welfare didn't throw away hundreds of billions of dollars in the Iraqi desert.
I'll bet you're not one of the 1%. Just one of the saps whose pocket keeps getting picked. Just like most of us. Why do you keep defending the people who pick your pockets dailiy? What is it, a form of Stockholm Syndrome?
"Most together in security and prosperity" Do you have to go to some camp to learn to chant this crap?
Did you ever think that blacks and single women vote their interests? Or don't you think blacks and single women can discern those interests for themselves? Maybe you can teach them to vote against their own interests the way you do. You'll have to disguise your condescension though.
"Do you have to go to camp to learn to chant this crap?"
DeleteHe/she can just listen to talk radio a lot.
Did you ever think that blacks and single women vote their interests? Or don't you think blacks and single women can discern those interests for themselves? Maybe you can teach them to vote against their own interests the way you do. You'll have to disguise your condescension though.
DeleteGovernment replacing work ethic and the nuclear family isn't representation of anyone's interests and when one reaches the point at which they think it is, it usually means they have already had their dignity destroyed by "progressives" and no longer recognizes the dehumanization and widespread social misery that accompanies the loss of those "white man's values." Interestingly those practicing them are thriving better than others in America. You'll have to attribute that to greed and thievery instead of an outcome of an approach to life that tends to work based on a set of standards no Democrat dares acknowledge is important.
The government hasn't replaced "the work ethic" or "the nuclear family." That you're so worried about "white man's values" just points up your fear of the demographic changes in this country. The fact that the 1% are mainly white and married matters less than the fact that they've rigged the system from the tax code to the election laws.
Delete"Democrats," "progressives," and those not practicing the "virtues" you call "white man's values" are just the demons that haunt your fever dreams.
The government hasn't replaced "the work ethic" or "the nuclear family."
DeleteWhat do you think about a cultural value that insists on a work ethic and avoiding government dependency, and what do you think about the nuclear family as a cultural standard, and how it effects economies and individuals' lives?
The fact that the 1% are mainly white and married matters less than the fact that they've rigged the system from the tax code to the election laws.
DeleteI'm not talking about the 1% and I'm not sure if they are married although assuming they are mostly white. Cue paranoid "progressives" reading that as a racial slur.
I'm talking about the upper and lower 30% and behavioral characteristics that associate.
Does the bad economy and racism cause people to make the decision not to marry if they reproduce and to have more children than they can afford without government or does the Democratic party have more to do with it?
The top 1% own 42% of the wealth in this country; the top 5% own 72%.
ReplyDeleteIt's a safe bet that the lower 75% would like nothing better than economic reform and most would even like nothing better than to be on board with policies like universal health care.
But the cost of doing business with modern progressives is participation in the rotting social fabric as a result of a mindset of dependency and failure of the nuclear family. You didn't mention it in your analysis of what is wrong with America. Most progressives won't mention it because they are defined by the lunatic attitude of "Let's not hurt anyone's feelings or call out irresponsible behavior because after all there is excuse xyz for a small percentage of those practicing it, but more important than that it allows us to call other people racists." Or worse, they don't even recognize the mindset as a problem.
There is no remedy for the decline of America and it's not because of wealth disparity, which can be and has been reversed and reversed again throughout history.
I don't mind hurting people's feelings. Including those whose greed and fraud nearly drove the country's financial system off a cliff. And I don't mind hurting the feelings of ignoramuses like you who think America is in decline because of people who can't get or can't afford health insurance.
DeleteI haven't called you a racist. Just an ignoramus. Interesting that you should bring it up. A tad defensive, no?
Wealth disparity can be reversed? Really? Not as long as people like you are cheering for the 1%. Who are laughing at you for your gullibility. If you put your ear next to your monitor, you can hear them if you listen carefully.
Must it be one or the other?
DeleteCan't it be true that our culture is the victim of a breakdown in ethical and responsible behavior from top to bottom?
Trickle-down corruption in the sense that an abandonment of principle and responsibility started among the privileged class (who are more able to stave off the effects), to the underclass who suffer most from it.
There's been a book out for awhile along these lines: "What's the Matter With Kansas?"
DeleteTrickle-down corruption in the sense that an abandonment of principle and responsibility started among the privileged class (who are more able to stave off the effects), to the underclass who suffer most from it.
DeleteIf you are including white liberal elites who encouraged abandonment of principle and responsibility by promoting government dependency and moral decay, as one faction of the blameworthy privileged class, sure.
No, I'm including reactionary elites who encouraged the greed and fraud that nearly toppled the financial system in 2008, and who in 2001 engineered the huge transfer of wealth to themselves while they impoverished the middle and lower economic classes.
DeleteAs long as they can convince you that the poor are parasites and moral degenerates, you won't look to find them picking your pockets. They love dupes like you as their cheerleaders, but they'll never set a place for you at the table. Why are you still shaking those pom-poms?
No, I'm including reactionary elites who encouraged the greed and fraud that nearly toppled the financial system in 2008, and who in 2001 engineered the huge transfer of wealth to themselves while they impoverished the middle and lower economic classes.
DeleteI agree and let's throw in an unnecessary war or two. Now then, what about those social security disability fraudsters, welfare dependent persons creating multiple children and relying on government to pay the bills, epidemic of "discouraged" Americans who decide they no longer will participate in the work force, bloated, worthless government bureaucracies and public unions.
Imagine what could be done for the deserving poor attempting to participate in a society by working and behaving responsibly were it not for them. I don't expect anything in the way of response other than more deflection proving my point.
Willard the Historical Footnote famously found himself on videotape during his campaign for President, saying that 47% American were parasites on society. But let's assume that you, unlike him, aren't counting veterans drawing benefits and the indigent in nursing homes. Let's talk cash payments to able-bodied people, TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), the program that in 1996 replaced the old welfare system, AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children). TANF limits benefits to a maximum of 5 years and requires work after 2. In its last year, somewhat north of 12M people were on AFDC. In 2012, the number on TANF was 4M. Let's put this in perspective. The population of the US is about 314M, about 114M households.
DeleteWhat about those hordes of babies born to all those degenerates you're so afraid of? The US birth rate is at its lowest ever, as is the birth rate for teenagers, which has been falling for two decades, down by half in that period.
And do you suppose that people sometimes drop out of the job market discouraged because they can't find work? Or is it always lack of moral fiber?
It's not that the society doesn't have serious problems. It's that these are not the hobgoblins of your imagination. But like most ignoramuses the facts don't matter to you. You won't consider them now, and you will never have to because your predicted moral apocalypse is conveniently a century away.
What about those hordes of babies born to all those degenerates you're so afraid of? The US birth rate is at its lowest ever, as is the birth rate for teenagers, which has been falling for two decades, down by half in that period.
DeleteA paragraph containing no relevant information about the topics at hand.
And do you suppose that people sometimes drop out of the job market discouraged because they can't find work? Or is it always lack of moral fiber?
Yes, I would say refusing to continue looking for work or accept jobs that wouldn't be one's first choice represent a lack of moral fiber. Would you do that?
You can't even recognize a fact anymore, can you? It's enough to wallow in your world (or rather country) destruction fantasies about the breakdown of the moral fiber all around you, which will destroy us all in -- wait for it! -- a century or so.
DeleteAll those hordes of illegitimate babies you're afraid of? They exist only in your imagination. That's what falling birth rates mean.
And don't hurt yourself getting on and off your high moral horse. That is, if you ever dismount.
All those hordes of illegitimate babies you're afraid of? They exist only in your imagination. That's what falling birth rates mean.
DeleteThe CDC's imagination said 1.6 million of them were born last year which will be reduced by a whopping 16,000 next year if current birthrate trends continue and illegitimacy rates do not rise.
That's .5% of the population of the US. Good thing we're not supposed to panic until a hundred years have passed, eh?
DeleteAnd I don't mind hurting the feelings of ignoramuses like you who think America is in decline because of people who can't get or can't afford health insurance.
ReplyDeleteI didn't say nor imply that is the reason America is in decline. You're so brainwashed by your need to stick with your tribe that it affects your reading comprehension.
In fact what I said was that Americans would likely support universal health care large numbers but many do not get on board with ideas like that because the party representing them also fosters, defends and thrives on social decay and government dependence which will be the end of economic and military strength (therefore freedom and opportunity) in America within a century.
Wealth disparity can be reversed? Really? Not as long as people like you are cheering for the 1%.
I just corrected you on what I was and was not cheering for. Wealth disparity can theoretically be narrowed and without also destroying the country but it won't be because your "demographics" that encourage dependency and degeneracy are growing and and will increasingly outnumber those who understand that when the nuclear family and work ethic are destroyed, the nation is done for. It so happens that group of voters is currently comprised of white men and (married) women and finds itself better represented by Republicans, viewing the Democratic party as hostile to those standards because it is.
If it makes you feel better keep blaming Wall Street and selling the idea that the other factors are not more critical. Between your favorite demographics and white progressives you might just establish your utopia of universal misery within your lifetime.
You speak of "work ethic" and imply that only white people have it and wonder why people call you a racist.
DeleteAgain, the party that fosters social decay and government dependence is the party of the 1%, thriving on a tax code that lets them shirk their public responsibilities, subsidizes their gambling with our economic futures, and insures them against their failures. And to top it off, we have to listen to dupes like you sing the praises of all their hard work.
DeleteRemember that the top 5% own 72% of the wealth in this country. That's whom the Republican party best represents.
Widespread if not universal misery is here. Median income is $1K less than it was in 2007, 47M people have no health insurance, and medical misfortune is the number one cause of personal bankruptcy. Unemployment is still high, and young people leave college with crippling debt. But the people you cheer for are doing just fine, fully recovered from the depression they caused.
If it makes you feel better, keep condemning poor people, black and brown people, and single women as parasites and degenerates, as you pat yourself on the back for your "white values."
And the best part? You'll never need to examine your absurd prejudices because all this decay will destroy America only in slow motion over the next century.
I haven't disagreed with you on contributing causes for recession and working people struggling. You, on the other hand, in typical progressive fashion, can't bring yourself to identify the conditions that, regardless of wealth disparity, will continue to destroy the country. My guess is you don't believe 75 illegitimacy rate in the black community, 50% in white and replacing a work ethic with government dependency are problems, and it is certain most Democrats would agree with you. Even those who do recognize it will not do so publicly. It would violate some warped progressive "value."
DeleteI can distinguish facts from fantasy. Rates of illegitimacy are facts. The extrapolation from such facts to the destruction of the country is just fantasy. What's crumbling is society's conformance to your view of what society should be. But that's different.
DeleteTake comfort in the fact that your black fellow citizens everywhere are grateful for your concern about them.
I don't know about all Democrats or progressives, but careful people don't brand as lacking a "work ethic" those who can't find work in a depression.
Restating your comment, you believe work ethic and the nuclear family are not important when analyzing poverty and other social miseries existing for a majority of blacks and smaller but significant proportions of whites, and you also believe you are a more compassionate person than one who notices that epidemic proportions of able bodied adults refuse to work, produce multiple children they cannot afford, and defraud social programs. It is good for your self esteem to refuse to acknowledge those realities because you might insult those who are able bodied and actively seeking work and you wouldn't want to feel judgmental.
DeleteYour self esteem must be preserved above all else including the consequences to millions of your decision to ignore and deny the obvious.
Please don't include me in your fantasy world overrun by illegitimate black (and by a smaller but still significant number of white) babies. All of whom don't have that good 'ol white man's work ethic and never will. Which of course means doom for the US in -- check your watch -- the next century or so.
DeleteYou don't know what I believe about work ethic and nuclear families, you don't know what I believe about myself, and your guesses about my self-esteem are likely nothing more than projections of your own ignorance and insecurity.
There is no epidemic of able-bodied adults who refuse to work, there is no horde of bastards about to destroy the social fabric of the US in one hundred years. There are plenty of problems in US society, but we don't have to worry about the fictional horrors confined to the interior of your skull.
You don't know what I believe about work ethic and nuclear families
DeleteI wonder why you keep it so classified since you disclose every opinion about the thieving 1%, greedy Republicans, and people who don't keep their views on those issues a secret. My point exactly.
Not all the 1% are Republicans.
DeleteA very small number of the 1% are thieves because for the most part their economic activities are legal.
Unlike you, I have little insight into the motivations of those I don't know. There are about 114M households in this country. One percent of those makes for over 1M households. How could anyone know the level of greed or even awareness in so many people? Anyone but you, of course.
My personal opinions aren't classified. It's just hard to imagine that anyone in this commentariat cares about them. Certainly, they have no bearing on the discussion.
My comments about the 1% aren't opinions. You can actually verify my claim that the 1% owns 42% of the wealth in this country. You, on the other hand, know the moral failings of the unemployed and underemployed. Estimates vary on the size of this population, but it's north of 20M. Neat trick on your part.
What point do you think you've established "exactly"? Aside from the fact that you've fallen in love with a narrative of the slow-motion destruction of the country by people whose failings you claim to know.
Unlike you, I have little insight into the motivations of those I don't know.
DeleteThat made me laugh out loud because of your previous, repeated misreadings of my words and implications and motivations you claimed were within them. Seemed clear you had no concerns about exercising care when assuming you had insight into motivations.
My personal opinions aren't classified. It's just hard to imagine that anyone in this commentariat cares about them. Certainly, they have no bearing on the discussion.
We were discussing contributing causes to economic hardship for millions of Americans, and you have yet to say whether you think promoting ethics such as continuing to look for work instead of relying on others, and the nuclear family, would have any outcome, positive or negative, for the economy, in individuals' lives, or determining America's future.
If you want statistics supporting my narrative, you can find a mind-numbing volume of them in Charles Murray's "Coming Apart." Your good intentions aren't working out for most people according to that work, and it might open your eyes to just how counterproductive silence on these issues has been for the people Democrats claim to care about. You would have to give up the narrative you yourself are in love with.
What point do you think you've established "exactly"?
That there is a strange (but not new) lefty avoidance of acknowledging certain cause and effect relationships.
What is disquieting is that where the USSR and its policies are concerned one cannot expect intelligent criticism or even, in many cases, plain honesty from Liberal [sic — and throughout as typescript] writers and journalists who are under no direct pressure to falsify their opinions. Stalin is sacrosanct and certain aspects of his policy must not be seriously discussed. This rule has been almost universally observed since 1941, but it had operated, to a greater extent than is sometimes realised, for ten years earlier than that. Throughout that time, criticism of the Soviet régime from the left could only obtain a hearing with difficulty. There was a huge output of anti-Russian literature, but nearly all of it was from the Conservative angle and manifestly dishonest, out of date and actuated by sordid motives. On the other side there was an equally huge and almost equally dishonest stream of pro-Russian propaganda, and what amounted to a boycott on anyone who tried to discuss all-important questions in a grown-up manner. You could, indeed, publish anti-Russian books, but to do so was to make sure of being ignored or misrepresented by nearly me whole of the highbrow press. Both publicly and privately you were warned that it was ‘not done’. What you said might possibly be true, but it was ‘inopportune’ and played into the hands of this or that reactionary interest
You might have another explanation for why you feel comfortable discussing why the 1% laughs at me for doing its bidding against my own economic interest yet not also noting that the social program fraudsters and abusers also not only laugh at you for breaking your back to make their lives free of work but for setting up, by your silence, the social conditions necessary for you to get beaten to death outside your Moose lodge for $43.
I've gone back and read my deathless prose in the commentary for this entry, and I can't find any speculations on your motives for holding your benighted views. Is the failure to read for comprehension an isolated problem, or is it part of a larger deficit in cognition? You might want to get that checked out.
DeleteJust to be clear, I don't know why you hold the views you do, and I don't speculate on why the myth of the slow-motion decline of American society fascinates you so much. If I've attributed statements to you that you didn't make, then I'm merely mistaken.
We indeed were discussing the causes of economic hardship, and I indeed have expressed no opinion on the merits of "promoting" your views on ethics the nuclear family. That's because we're not discussing any claims I have to make about ethics and the nuclear family. That's your shtick. I suppose I ought to be flattered that you care. I don't know why you do, and I doubt anyone else joins you in this interest.
Ah, yes. How pathetic. Charles Murray, the co-author of The Bell Curve and the modern purveyor of the discredited eugenic theory of IQ inheritance through race. A little time spent on the google finds that you've swallowed your views whole from Coming Apart. No, I don't want any "statistics" from a right-wing huckster bemoaning the state of white people.
And no, my failure to express my opinions is not evidence of "lefty" avoidance of "certain cause and effect relationships." My quoting of some statistical facts, however, shows that your opinions on these relationships is nonsense. Notwithstanding the fact you're not shy about expressing yourself.
Stalin died in 1953; the Soviet Union, in 1991. Your long and unattributed quote dates from the early 1940s and is from Eric Blair, only one of many stalwarts on the anti-Stalinist left. Your claim is not only hopelessly outdated, but its very source undercuts your thesis.
I feel comfortable claiming that the 1% laughs at you because I think you're a fool. But I was just being facetious. Those in the 1% don't care enough about you to laugh at you.
I don't feel it's necessary to give credence to your false premises.
Rates of violent crime in the US have been dropping since their peak in 1991. By your reckoning, I guess we'll have to wait a hundred years to be sure of the trend. But for safety's sake, I've resigned my membership in the Loyal Order of Moose.
We indeed were discussing the causes of economic hardship, and I indeed have expressed no opinion on the merits of "promoting" your views on ethics the nuclear family. That's because we're not discussing any claims I have to make about ethics and the nuclear family. That's your shtick. I suppose I ought to be flattered that you care. I don't know why you do, and I doubt anyone else joins you in this interest.
DeleteThe broader topic is voting patterns and you are quick to claim that lower-income people who vote Republican do so foolishly and against their own interests. It requires recognition of their mindset in order to determine whether their votes are or are not in their self-interest, and the discussion about what these voters identify as their interests and the primary reasons they are undermined was an effort to determine whether or not you apprehend the mindset, or whether you simply assume you do because your narrative requires ignoring certain elements and emphasizing others.
In my view, no one can conclude these voters are acting against their self interest if they understand the mindset, and understand it is entirely founded in reality rather than just wishing it were not.
Ah, yes. How pathetic. Charles Murray, the co-author of The Bell Curve and the modern purveyor of the discredited eugenic theory of IQ inheritance through race. A little time spent on the google finds that you've swallowed your views whole from Coming Apart. No, I don't want any "statistics" from a right-wing huckster bemoaning the state of white people
DeleteThe book isn't exactly that, but you obviously would rather not evaluate easily-verifiable statistics compiled from a conservative source because of the source. That's your prerogative of course.
Others such as Nicholas Kristof found much to think about in the book.
Stalin died in 1953; the Soviet Union, in 1991. Your long and unattributed quote dates from the early 1940s and is from Eric Blair, only one of many stalwarts on the anti-Stalinist left. Your claim is not only hopelessly outdated, but its very source undercuts your thesis.
DeleteNo, it's by Orwell and more relevant than ever now. Are you still reflexively skeptical?
I feel comfortable claiming that the 1% laughs at you because I think you're a fool. But I was just being facetious. Those in the 1% don't care enough about you to laugh at you.
I thought we were not presuming to have any insights into what entire groups of people are thinking or motivated by?
It wasn't Blair; it was Orwell! Bwahahahahahahaha! Next thing you'll be telling me, Sparky, is that Clemens didn't write Huckleberry Finn; it was Twain. You're as dumb as a ball-peen hammer.
ReplyDeleteGeorge Orwell (ne Eric Blair) was an astute observer of the politics of societies from the British Raj to Republican Spain to the class divides in England and the Continent. He did his own research and reported from the front. When he writes about doctrinaire segments of the political left, I believe him, not least because I can check some of his claims for myself, say, by looking at the machinations of the CPUSA.
But Blair (and with him, Orwell) died in 1950, which is too bad because I'm not going to rely on you for similar contemporary judgments. That's not because I'm reflexively skeptical; it's because I don't accept the word of preposterous ignoramuses like you, not least because I can check your claims as well.
But here you are lecturing me on the unthinking left, as you parrot the opinions of a discredited right-wing hack like Murray. The irony is not lost on me. You, on the other hand, are apparently immune to irony.
And, no, I really don't know whether the 1% are laughing at you. It was a joke. You know how you can tell? Because you really can't hear other people just by putting your ear to your monitor.
But Blair (and with him, Orwell) died in 1950, which is too bad because I'm not going to rely on you for similar contemporary judgments. That's not because I'm reflexively skeptical; it's because I don't accept the word of preposterous ignoramuses like you, not least because I can check your claims as well.
ReplyDeleteYou're not going to rely on Orwell, even though you believe him, because you don't accept the word of ignoramuses who quote him?
You're not reflexively skeptical but you won't rely on ignoramuses like because you can check their claims, and you won't rely on Murray because you claim he has been "discredited" (false) but not because you've checked his claims for yourself.
Nothing you have said reveals anything but specious logic and a tendency toward defensiveness in the form of Yosemite Sam tantrums. Not that I expected anything better from a suspected lib bot, but I always like to gather sufficient information before dismissing someone's opinions. Thanks for playing!
Well, Brave Sir Robin, bravely run away.
DeleteIn case you're lurking, let me note that there's that reading comprehension problem of yours again. I do rely on Orwell for the reasons I stated. Not for judgments of contemporary politics, of course, because Orwell died over sixty years ago. I'm not relying on you.
And, yes, Murray's work has been torn to shreds before. I'm thinking of The Bell Curve, where being black makes you (statistically) stupid. If you'd followed the criticism of that book when it came out, you'd know that Murray had no clue about race, class, statistics, or the history of "intelligence" testing.
I really don't have the time to waste on Coming Apart, where apparently being white makes you (statistically) immoral. Or something. I'm skeptical of right-wing hucksters like Murray based on his previous writing. Based on the fact the you parrot his nonsense so well, I'm guessing you're not.
You're not much better at reading my mind than you are at judging arguments for yourself. You think I'm defensive because a preposterous ignoramus like you disagrees with me? You can't even read my words straight. It's Orwell who's spot on, and it's you who's clueless. I'll put it in terms you can understand but probably not get: Some brains, good; no brains, bad.
You think I'm angry at you? Guess again. I'm ridiculing you.
And don't kid a kidder. You don't "gather sufficient information" on anyone's opinions. You just swallowed Murray's load of garbage whole without a thought of your own, didn't you?
I guess we'll have to wait one hundred years to see who's right, eh? In the meantime, maybe you'll have figured out who Eric
Blair was. And maybe you'll have read more of his writing than what was fed to you.
Oh, who am I kidding? A century isn't nearly enough time for you to wise up.