Interesting paper on the correlations between college education, economic dissatisfaction, racism and sexism and the likelihood of voting for Trump.
people.umass.edu
Anyone want to give it a read and give thoughts on the statistical methods and/or the conclusions? I don't read poli sci papers normally, but I think they left out a lot of potential interaction terms in their model
Other urls found in this thread:
thenation.com
twitter.com
>Read title
>ebin
The inherent nature of the subject makes it nearly impossible to define objectively. Given that the paper it seems incredibly reasonable. I only briefly skimmed it, but none of the language or argumentation is particularly troubling or biased in any way. And the methodology is very clearly laid out, with no signs of manipulation. And the material is presented very matter of factly without making reaching conclusions.
This is a much more interesting read because the analysis is more palpable.
>but I think they left out a lot of potential interaction terms in their model
What do you feel they left out they should have included?
>Paper written in word
disgusting
>Two prominent explanations have been offered. The first is that white working class Americans have been left behind during the economic recovery that took place during the Obama presidency. Trump’s populist economic message, focusing on protectionism and other policies to help working people, resonated with this group. A second explanation is that Trump’s willingness to make explicitly racist and sexist appeals during the campaign, coupled with the presence of an African American president and the first major party female nominee, made racism and sexism a dividing line in the vote in this election. This led less educated whites, who tend to exhibit higher levels of sexism and racism, to support Trump, while more educated whites were more supportive of Clinton.
Yup. Both are true.
>This led less educated whites, who tend to exhibit higher levels of sexism and racism, to support Trump, while more educated whites were more supportive of Clinton.
This is shit.
The correlations
>The 2016 exit polls found that 52% of the two-party vote among whites with at least a
college degree went to Trump, while Trump won 71% of the two-party vote among whites
without a college degree. This amounts to a 19-point gap in the vote choices of whites based on
education.
don't imply "lol stupid racist,sexist people vote for Trump"
It is far more likely that those without a college degree work blue collar jobs and are afraid to lose them via immigration and socialist policies.
>don't imply "lol stupid racist,sexist people vote for Trump"
Right, and this paper in no way made this conclusion.
What counts as a college degree? If you include the large swaths of people who never left their small towns with general ed associates from their community colleges...
>racist,sexist people vote for Trump
Besides if you were generally uncertain how many legitimate racist and sexist people were to vote in the election, then you've been living under a rock
That has less to do with the paper at hand and only to do with the people who actually took the data.
>If you include the large swaths of people who never left their small towns with general ed associates from their community colleges...
My guess is that it only includes bachelor degrees.
it was heavily implied throughout the entire paper
Whats wrong with people being sexist or racist?
I believe that women are better as mothers and that africans arent as intelligent as other races. Am I a "racist"?
>Am I a "racist"?
Unless you have hard evidence for your belief, than yes.
fuck off with your retarded pseudoscience bullshit
>it was heavily implied throughout the entire paper
It was implied but not heavily or disproportionately given the literal evidence. Papers like this are intended to make implications for further research. Look at the title ffs. I did not see any absolute or definite conclusions made, which is what you are suggesting it does. I didnt read it completely, do you have examples from this paper of that?
Or if you disagree with the data collected then gripe with that, not the paper which has nothing to do with data collection.
Well unlike some anons I'm going to give the voters of Trump the benefit of doubt and say they supported him MOSTLY because of economic/ immigration reasons. The models presented do seem to implicate them on racism and sexism but I didn't see any extensive models that measured their views on globalism which I suspect is probably the bigger issue.
Now why they believed a billionaire who inherited his wealth from his father, expanded the wealth of the brand and business mostly internationally, married a foreign woman and has no "high" formal experience in military, law, intelligence, security, politics or even economics (the guy only has a bachelors which hardly makes you qualified even within the field) I can only guess.
Maybe it really was just a shitty electoral cycle with unfavorable picks this season.
this shit isn't an actual paper, it reads like a high school "paper"
It depends. If you use these slight statistical tendencies to pass judgement on people then yes. That includes your subconscious prejudices.
Exit polls were very interesting this cycle. People who found both candidates despicable tended to vote for Trump. And the amount of dissatisfaction with both candidates was startling high. I can't help but feel as though many of these post election analyses are misguided in attributing Trumps election to some retaliatory right wing movement and not overwhelming voter disillusionment.
I'm sort, but no, I'm not going to read your undergrad paper. Your prose is absolute shit