How Half Of America Lost Its F**king Mind, an article trying to explain trumpists to the blue team

submitted by iamonlyoneman from cracked.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Hematomato 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

1st fallacy: nearly empty counties don't vote; people vote. If you want to see how PEOPLE voted in 2012, you have to look at a people-oriented map, like this one.

That map directly supports what Pargin is saying - that people in urban centers vote for Democrats while people in rural areas, who are hurting, vote against Democrats.

the election was NOT about rural vs urban groups

But it was. To the point where, for all our "personal opinions," for all the bad noise generated online, you can almost perfectly predict how an election will go just based on on population density.

city dwellers are so much better off than rural dwellers. Nope

On aggregate, this is absolutely true. Denying it is silly. Salaries are much higher in cities, and it's far easier to find a six-figure job.

[–]no_u 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

That map directly supports what Pargin is saying - that people in urban centers vote for Democrats while people in rural areas, who are hurting, vote against Democrats.

No - there are many reasons for the differences between rural and urban voting tendencies - a century-old topic. Many in the cities are also struggling, by a much larger margin in some cases. Geographic determinism never explains this historical problem appropriately because there are more important factors regarding the access to information, education, jobs, &c. The onging problem is class warfare perpetuated by misinformation media and government abuses. This is NOT related to WHERE people are, but HOW people are. To conflate the two is absolutely ridiculous.

But it was. To the point where, for all our "personal opinions," for all the bad noise generated online, you can almost perfectly predict how an election will go just based on on population density.

No - not geographically determined, per my note above.

On aggregate, this is absolutely true. Denying it is silly. Salaries are much higher in cities, and it's far easier to find a six-figure job.

It would take too long to explain this, and still responses to me on Saidit will be that I kill myself, but here goes:

It costs more to live in cities and the majority of populations in cities are earning less than 50k/year, barely enough for 2 people to live on in the urban or suburban areas. Only a minority in the cities earn over 50k. For many in the cities, 80k/year is a struggling salary, with no savings, pension or guaranteed healthcare. In rural areas the cost of living is much lower, where salaries of 35k/year are the bare minimum. The wealthiest people tend to live in cities, but are a tiny minority. All three - urban, suburban, and rural areas - have been struggling under GOP-controlled governments since 1984. See the chart at the bottom here: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/05/22/demographic-and-economic-trends-in-urban-suburban-and-rural-communities Put simply: the majority of city dwellers are sharing a similar kind of economic strain felt in rural areas (most US counties are rural).

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

The onging problem is class warfare perpetuated by misinformation media and government abuses. This is NOT related to WHERE people are, but HOW people are. To conflate the two is absolutely ridiculous.

Of course it is. The entire capitalist class lives in cities. Sure, on occasion they'll have "a ranch in Texas" or something, but they spend the vast majority of their time and energy in cities, interfacing with people in cities.

No - not geographically determined, per my note above.

And yet, obviously geographically determined, by anyone who has eyes. To the point where there's a very strong correlation between how you're going to vote and how far away you live from a major body of water.

It costs more to live in cities and the majority of populations in cities are earning less than 50k/year, barely enough for 2 people to live on in the urban or suburban areas.

Did you read Pargin's article? He talks about this - about how kids from rural areas who want to move to the cities, for any chance of a better life, cannot afford to live there. Because you can't move to a city on a country salary unless you want to be homeless.

But it's the people in the cities who are making six-and-seven-figure salaries who are in complete control of the nation and its culture. And rural people are just shut out of it, and roundly mocked.

[–]no_u 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

I read the whole article. It's annoying on several levels. It's also a very old oversimplification of voter analysis. As such, it's quite misleading, for reasons I note above. I'm not seeing in your reply any new rebuttal to my points, so I'll leave it at that. If you want to understand voter analysis, you'd have to look at a number of different factors, some of which I refer to above (eg. we should see how voters are manipulated, not where they are; and the vast majority of non-rural America makes less than $50k, which is almost poverty by first-world standards).

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

I'm not seeing in your reply any new rebuttal to my points, so I'll leave it at that.

This is, and will always be, Internet code for "I'm starting to realize I'm wrong, but I prefer to remain arrogant and haughty, so I'm gonna run away now."

[–]no_u 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

Are you insane? Where in your previous comment was there a new rebuttal to my comments?

[–]Hematomato 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (19 children)

The previous comment contained three rebuttals to your comments, and instead of addressing them, you just sniffed and said "I win. I'll leave it at that."

I know what you're really saying.

[–]no_u 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

You merely repeated your previous comments. There is no new rebuttal. If you disagree, list my argument and your new rebuttal.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

No, that is a lie. I responded directly to your arguments and refuted them, at which point you announced that you won and ran away.

[–]no_u 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

You merely repeated your previous comments. There is no new rebuttal. If you disagree, list my argument and your new rebuttal.

You're being disingenuous.

And I'm still here.