Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

David Shor’s Unified Theory of American Politics

nymag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 79 posts

Re: David Shor’s Unified Theory of American Politics

#41

Post by rendall »

shoo wrote: post #32
rayiner wrote: post #2

> And I think the real synthesis of these views is that Obama-to-Trump voters are motivated by racism. Hmm. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/18/opinion/biden-latino-vote... > We began by asking eligible voters how “convincing” they found a dog-whistle message lifted from Republican talking points... Almost three out of five white respondents judged the message convincing. More surprising, exactly the same percentage o…

here's some pointers to results summarising 1. higher racial resentment correlated with higher votes for trump 2. most positive views of rising diversity correlated with switching from voting for romney to voting for not-trump ; least positive views of rising diversity correlated with switching from voting for obama to voting for trump 3. correlation of support for trump and more negative views of rising diversity th…

> "This is all pretty pretty clear, I don't know what else you could want."

I do wish he would have talked more about what "racially charged internet searches" meant. As Paula Wright pointed out, I'd like to know what those "racially charged internet searches" which you have described as "racist" were. Immigration is surely not a race issue in the US, an ethnically diverse culture. Wouldn't illegal immigration be just as big a concern for black wkibg [sic]* class citizens?* and There was rhetorical slippage here from "racially charged" to "racist".

Re: David Shor’s Unified Theory of American Politics

#42

Post by nyanpasu64 »

rendall wrote: post #39

From the article: But a lot of people on the Clinton campaign tricked themselves into the idea that they didn’t have to placate the social views of racist white people. This seems like a pretty important insight and I really wish the interview could have unpacked this a lot better. It seems to be an operating assumption of the Democratic campaign, and I imagine if one is locked into this view (by implacable statistic…

Took a while to find, but "How Ideological Moderation Conceals Support for Immoderate Policies: A New Perspective on the “Disconnect” in American Politics"

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.688...

Re: David Shor’s Unified Theory of American Politics

#43

Post by sideshowb »

rendall wrote: post #39

From the article: But a lot of people on the Clinton campaign tricked themselves into the idea that they didn’t have to placate the social views of racist white people. This seems like a pretty important insight and I really wish the interview could have unpacked this a lot better. It seems to be an operating assumption of the Democratic campaign, and I imagine if one is locked into this view (by implacable statistic…

I'd like to see that paper too if you find it. Over in the UK, Cummings credits his win of the Brexit campaign to a similar insight about "moderates". (Oh and there's a PG blog on the topic too).

Re: David Shor’s Unified Theory of American Politics

#45

Post by insickness »

This article gives a perfect, if unintentional synopsis of why Trump is in power. The left has embraced hook-line-and-sinker Critical Theory and Identity Politics. All power and victimhood is seen through the lens of identities, causing the left had to abandon class because it is not an immutable category. The working class abandoned the Democratic party because the party abandoned the working class and then poured salt onto their abandonment by shaming them as racist/sexist/homophobe, etc.

Re: David Shor’s Unified Theory of American Politics

#46

Post by forest_dweller »

jacquesm wrote: post #35
alttab wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This dude knows nothing about why Trump won if he thinks I went from Obama to Trump because I'm a closet racist. Maybe it had to do with all the war, bombing, and drone campaigns?

It's the company you keep... As if the Republican side didn't have enough bombings, drone strikes and so on. Yes, Obama disappointed on quite a few fronts. But choosing Trump of Clinton was just plain stupid, face it.

> It's the company you keep ...

What is that supposed to mean?

> As if the Republican side didn't have enough bombings, drone strikes and so on.

I have a few friends at work that are from Pakistan. They prefer Trump over Obama because he isn't droning their homeland.

So they think Trump is an improvement.

> But choosing Trump of Clinton was just plain stupid, face it.

This is why everything is becoming polarised. This assumption that the other side is stupid or evil or both.

A lot of voters were turned off by Clinton calling Trump supporters deplorable. Others were worried after Clinton said she wanted to put a no-fly zone over Syria which would have meant a direct conflict with Russia.

I still remember Christopher Hitchen's scathing criticism of the Clitons.

https://christopherhitchens.net/hillary-clinton

He wrote a whole book about them IIRC.

There are a lot of valid criticisms of both Trump and Clinton however calling people stupid isn't going to convince anyone of your position.

Re: David Shor’s Unified Theory of American Politics

#47

Post by casept »

insickness wrote: post #45

This article gives a perfect, if unintentional synopsis of why Trump is in power. The left has embraced hook-line-and-sinker Critical Theory and Identity Politics. All power and victimhood is seen through the lens of identities, causing the left had to abandon class because it is not an immutable category. The working class abandoned the Democratic party because the party abandoned the working class and then poured s…

When was the democratic party ever truly "left"?

My impression of them is that they were arguably mildly SocDem in the past, and then turned into (neo)liberals in the 90's. Liberals are not leftists.

Re: David Shor’s Unified Theory of American Politics

#48

Post by jmeister »

forest_dweller wrote: post #46
jacquesm wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the company you keep... As if the Republican side didn't have enough bombings, drone strikes and so on. Yes, Obama disappointed on quite a few fronts. But choosing Trump of Clinton was just plain stupid, face it.

> It's the company you keep ... What is that supposed to mean? > As if the Republican side didn't have enough bombings, drone strikes and so on. I have a few friends at work that are from Pakistan. They prefer Trump over Obama because he isn't droning their homeland. So they think Trump is an improvement. > But choosing Trump of Clinton was just plain stupid, face it. This is why everything is becoming polarised. Thi…

It boggles my mind that there is still no sensible “establishment” understanding of why Trump was elected. There was no honest post-mortem after 2016, only blaming sexism, racism or Russian interference. No lessons learnt.

This column by Russ Douthat from a couple of days back summarizes the failure:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/30/opinion/trump-republican-...

Re: David Shor’s Unified Theory of American Politics

#49

Post by raxxorrax »

rendall wrote: post #39

From the article: But a lot of people on the Clinton campaign tricked themselves into the idea that they didn’t have to placate the social views of racist white people. This seems like a pretty important insight and I really wish the interview could have unpacked this a lot better. It seems to be an operating assumption of the Democratic campaign, and I imagine if one is locked into this view (by implacable statistic…

I think it is dead wrong on almost all accounts. I don't think people are widely racists and the accusation wasn't even underhanded, it was very well perceived. That did cost a lot of votes. Especially since the democrats even wanted to penalize people for allegedly being racist. Like a monarch that went crazy. This is really bad overall advice in my opinion.

> that “moderate” voters don’t have moderate views, just ideologically inconsistent ones.

Anyone advocating ideologically consistent views should be eyed with suspicion.

Perhaps people are interested in how their situation can be improved instead of how their alleged opinions can be bettered. Some of those people hoped for a little less hubris, which was in vain if you read stuff like this.

Sorry, but it is really that bad and I wonder how these people became sociologists in the first place.

To suggest that you can only win an election while appealing to racist white people is so far removed from reality...

Re: David Shor’s Unified Theory of American Politics

#50

Post by raxxorrax »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #11
ZeteticElench wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump is obviously racist and divisive.

Curious that you're downvoted without comment. I was hoping some of your detractors would've explained why they think you're wrong. As an outsider to the US bunfight, your statement seems, based on what we see, pretty self-evident.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/456523-donald-trumps...

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/456523-donald-trumps...

I don't believe he is a racist. He has strong opinions and no fear of hiding them. That is actually a huge draw for people voting for him.

Accusations of racism are mostly political play.

I don't really see how it is self-evident though. What do you think makes him racist? The Obama stuff could be seen as that but I am unsure if it is racism or craziness, but I would tend to think the latter to be more correct.

Post reply on HN