Interesting about your folks, KM. Pre-pandemic, I had a lot of regular interaction with people who supported Trump, but who's second choice was Bernie. We use Trump as a convenient label for 74 million people that are as diverse as any group I have ever tried to grok. Just as the tragedy in DC on Jan 6th was made up of a lot of people wi…
Interesting about your folks, KM. Pre-pandemic, I had a lot of regular interaction with people who supported Trump, but who's second choice was Bernie. We use Trump as a convenient label for 74 million people that are as diverse as any group I have ever tried to grok. Just as the tragedy in DC on Jan 6th was made up of a lot of people with very different motives as were the protests this summer following George Floyd's death.
Well, my parents are your typical suburban middle class Fox News watchers. They’re both retired but they’ve been voting republican since the 70’s. They were pretty dogmatically anti-liberal when I was growing up (80’s & 90’s) but we weren’t religious so I didn’t get the whole evangelical upbringing (though K have extended family that are very much religious fundamentalists).
So, my parents would be your typical right winger that would call Bernie a communist and yada yada. That’s the whole point, there are these people who’ve been dogmatically republican for over 40 years, that are starting to rethink all these things. There is no way my parents would’ve ever thought someone like Snowden should be pardon. Ever. They are totally on board now.
So, to all the so called liberals out there that give Glenn Greenwald or Eric Weinstein a hard time for going on Fox or think they’ve switched sides, they’re dead wrong. My parents have come around on issues like privacy, anti-war and anti-monopoly since watching shows like that. It’s anecdotal but if it can happen to my Regan devotee parents it can happen to anyone.
Very interesting thread here. The cross over between Bernie and Trump seems to be an anti-establishment vote but there is more to it than that. I did read an interesting article about how this shift started to pick up for Obama's first term. There was a clear delineation along socioeconomic lines that hasn't been there before. Just look at labor. This could be the last time that unions (outside of teacher's unions) support a Democratic nominee. Tulsi Gabbard is another interesting variable. She was active on Parler prior to the purge. I don't know if she still is.
More and more people are waking up to this fact: "don't listen to what they say, watch what they do" aka the unions that said vote Joe B and now find they are out of jobs as he flattens the oil/gas sector.
Psychological studies have shown that one!s personal preferences-music, politics are pretty much ingrained by age 35, and beyond that most people don’t like to evaluate WHY they prefer something, they just like to parrot/cheerlead for their personal taste. Of course if you are a questioning contrarian like all of us fine TK sub stack participants, this runs against our personal mores!
Stxbuck: Not disagreeing so much as clarifying. Social Psych literature suggests what is ingrained is one's outward, public personae--that doesn't change much in adults (but is even more correlated with pride).
Behavior is another thing, altogether. People who will reply 100% of the time that they are against, for example, seat belts will still wear them.
But if someone else then points out the inconsistency, they often change behavior again to match their stated beliefs.
Which makes one wonder if it is a good thing to poke Trump-ettes or let them instead get sick of shitting where they eat (any WEEN fans here?). Bottom line: I've learned that pointing out people's inconsistencies can be counterproductive even as it makes my head spin.
The people I talk with either support Gabbard's positions (few) or think she is a tool of Syria's Assad (most). Her anti-war positions are not welcome among the protected class (as Peggy Noonan refers to the powerful) as they profit from war. The press and editorial treatment of Gabbard's positions is a perfect example of outlets being a function of the military industrial complex establishment. Most of the reporting on Gabbard has been an utter despoilment of the term journalism.
No, they aren’t really interested in GG or Jimmy Dore. They are rabid Fox News watchers. These guys, esp. GG have been on Tucker Carlson. Tucker has been pretty anti-war, and Tucker has also been advocating pardoning Julian Assange ect...
The point was that Liberals are all aghast at GG going on to Tuckers show but GG has explained that he’s doing it to reach out to audiences like my parents. It’s working, so the Liberals who are only talking to themselves & friends on MSNBC are so completely wrong here.
Tucker and others have been switching issues around. I think the only consistent factor for him is supporting the future of the Republican Party, even though no one knows for certain where the party will be two years from now. I suppose that is also true of MSNBC -- that in the end they are just supporting Democrats. Does that sound correct to you?
That's a very good point. If we could figure some of that out, it would be great. But there is no way to figure out the composition of a crowd without extensive surveillance and concerted investigation.
Interesting about your folks, KM. Pre-pandemic, I had a lot of regular interaction with people who supported Trump, but who's second choice was Bernie. We use Trump as a convenient label for 74 million people that are as diverse as any group I have ever tried to grok. Just as the tragedy in DC on Jan 6th was made up of a lot of people with very different motives as were the protests this summer following George Floyd's death.
Well, my parents are your typical suburban middle class Fox News watchers. They’re both retired but they’ve been voting republican since the 70’s. They were pretty dogmatically anti-liberal when I was growing up (80’s & 90’s) but we weren’t religious so I didn’t get the whole evangelical upbringing (though K have extended family that are very much religious fundamentalists).
So, my parents would be your typical right winger that would call Bernie a communist and yada yada. That’s the whole point, there are these people who’ve been dogmatically republican for over 40 years, that are starting to rethink all these things. There is no way my parents would’ve ever thought someone like Snowden should be pardon. Ever. They are totally on board now.
So, to all the so called liberals out there that give Glenn Greenwald or Eric Weinstein a hard time for going on Fox or think they’ve switched sides, they’re dead wrong. My parents have come around on issues like privacy, anti-war and anti-monopoly since watching shows like that. It’s anecdotal but if it can happen to my Regan devotee parents it can happen to anyone.
Very interesting thread here. The cross over between Bernie and Trump seems to be an anti-establishment vote but there is more to it than that. I did read an interesting article about how this shift started to pick up for Obama's first term. There was a clear delineation along socioeconomic lines that hasn't been there before. Just look at labor. This could be the last time that unions (outside of teacher's unions) support a Democratic nominee. Tulsi Gabbard is another interesting variable. She was active on Parler prior to the purge. I don't know if she still is.
More and more people are waking up to this fact: "don't listen to what they say, watch what they do" aka the unions that said vote Joe B and now find they are out of jobs as he flattens the oil/gas sector.
Why does it take people so long to see the inconsistencies? That's what I don't get.
Psychological studies have shown that one!s personal preferences-music, politics are pretty much ingrained by age 35, and beyond that most people don’t like to evaluate WHY they prefer something, they just like to parrot/cheerlead for their personal taste. Of course if you are a questioning contrarian like all of us fine TK sub stack participants, this runs against our personal mores!
Stxbuck: Not disagreeing so much as clarifying. Social Psych literature suggests what is ingrained is one's outward, public personae--that doesn't change much in adults (but is even more correlated with pride).
Behavior is another thing, altogether. People who will reply 100% of the time that they are against, for example, seat belts will still wear them.
But if someone else then points out the inconsistency, they often change behavior again to match their stated beliefs.
Which makes one wonder if it is a good thing to poke Trump-ettes or let them instead get sick of shitting where they eat (any WEEN fans here?). Bottom line: I've learned that pointing out people's inconsistencies can be counterproductive even as it makes my head spin.
The people I talk with either support Gabbard's positions (few) or think she is a tool of Syria's Assad (most). Her anti-war positions are not welcome among the protected class (as Peggy Noonan refers to the powerful) as they profit from war. The press and editorial treatment of Gabbard's positions is a perfect example of outlets being a function of the military industrial complex establishment. Most of the reporting on Gabbard has been an utter despoilment of the term journalism.
Thank you for that very interesting information. Is anti-war sentiment the reason for their interest in Glenn Greenwald and Jimmy Dore?
No, they aren’t really interested in GG or Jimmy Dore. They are rabid Fox News watchers. These guys, esp. GG have been on Tucker Carlson. Tucker has been pretty anti-war, and Tucker has also been advocating pardoning Julian Assange ect...
The point was that Liberals are all aghast at GG going on to Tuckers show but GG has explained that he’s doing it to reach out to audiences like my parents. It’s working, so the Liberals who are only talking to themselves & friends on MSNBC are so completely wrong here.
Tucker and others have been switching issues around. I think the only consistent factor for him is supporting the future of the Republican Party, even though no one knows for certain where the party will be two years from now. I suppose that is also true of MSNBC -- that in the end they are just supporting Democrats. Does that sound correct to you?
That's a very good point. If we could figure some of that out, it would be great. But there is no way to figure out the composition of a crowd without extensive surveillance and concerted investigation.