The Axios article is written by the one person who sees the same Black face given strategically close seating at a Trump rally & thinks, "Golly, the Blacks love Trump! Whaddascoop, chief!"
Axios is usually bullshit from top to bottom – it’s the purest, concentrated version of hot take punditry – if other political reporters are like white wine spritzers, Axios is like grain alcohol.
Also, right now EVERYONE hates Dem politicians, including their own voters. The centrist Dems are mad because they think the problem is “wokeness,” and progressive Dems are mad because Biden and the Dem leadership are not being aggressive enough around the threat to civil rights and democracy itself, as well as being mad so little of the Dem agenda has made it through *a Democratic House and Senate.* And *everyone* is mad about inflation.
But I remain very skeptical a substantial number of Black people will vote for the GOP, a party that so *nakedly* seeks their subjugation and immiseration, simply because of the price of gasoline.
Axios, Politico, that one founded by that lame asshole Ezra Klein, - Vox, plus
The Daily Puke or whatever. I get the impression they're mostly staffed by trustfunder kids with real soft B grades in J school who's biggest qualification for a reporters job is the ability to survive an unpaid internship in DC. or New York.
Republicans are building a strong, multi-racial coalition that is making significant inroads with Blacks (which is why Republicans are working so very hard to keep Black people from voting), Latinos (which is why Republicans want to deport most of them), LGBQT+ folks (which is why Republicans want to kill most of them), and the working class (which Republicans believe should be happy to work for subsistence wages).
Oh gods thank you Roy. This bs piece has been plastered all over the LGM comment section by panicked commenters who ought to know better, and when I’ve tried to point out it’s nature I get slammed for sticking my head in the sand.
There are commenters at LGM who apparently self-identify with lawyers, guns, money or some combination of those three. Getting slammed there can mean you’re right.
There was a commenter over at alicublog who would go and hang at LGM pretty often. I was giving him some shit about it. He said it was kind of an acquired taste. I said, well they certainly have an astute grasp of the obvious. He said one of the things that he liked over there was how sometimes, everybody involved in a comment thread talked over and past everybody else. He said it was like all at once everybody started huffing their own farts. I said, Well, if that's how you like to spend your time... He said it was way better than Balloon Juice- they huff each other's farts over there
"sometimes, everybody involved in a comment thread talked over and past everybody else...." I confess I never read comments there, nor anywhere -- except here and alicublog, because the quality is so consistently high (and also out of professional responsibility).
There are some highly intelligent people who occasionally have good insights, but if the thread starts turning into Team D Defense Squad (h/t Atrios), it’s time to bail before my brain melts.
Yes, exactly. The collapse thread - is useful when someone posts a frivolous comment and 30 comments are posted in reply. I avoid all the obscure pop culture and D&D references that way.
There are a number of know-it-alls who comment at LGM, but there are also some very sharp ones. I think the commentariat there are predominantly academics and lawyers, like the bloggers, who can be very insightful and informative.
I comment there only occasionally, and usually only in an insubstantial way. Like I do here!
I admit, I frequent LGM, but I always, always, reach a point where I go "WTF am I doing here". The last time I bolted was over the argument that a twitter following equates a voting constituency (narrator: it doesn't). I am about to bolt again, because we should be talking about replacing Republican'ts, not talking about replacing Democrats...
There are some actual smart people there, and occasionally some good comments, but there are way too many centrist know-it-alls whose only joy in life is to punch left. Also, way too many commenters simply love to argue, and the more abstruse the point, the more pedantic they get.
I once had the temerity to suggest that, instead of spending $1 million on TV ads (a relatively small ad buy these days, I think) you could pay a thousand people in dem-leaning neighborhoods $1000 each to be a Block Captain, their only job being to get everyone on their block registered and to the polls. I was immediately informed that I am a Silly Child, and should leave the management of campaigns to the Serious Adults.
The leadership is handling everything perfectly! And if they lose that race, it’s just proof that the race is unwinnable and we need to yell at the voters some more. “You owe us your votes, you silly children. Now shut up and clap louder like you’re told!”
Jul 19, 2022·edited Jul 19, 2022Liked by Roy Edroso
I feel for you. Another typical interaction is to point out that X isn’t working, so maybe the Dem leadership should try Y or something else, only to be furiously attacked as a Bernie Bro, Dirtbag Left, or divisive. (Calling people divisive as they’re savaging them for offering constructive criticism is *chef’s kiss*)
Well mostly the centrist flacks that worry about the Dems being too (meaning any) woke are who are worried at LGM. But then they are always worried. Well, at least the ones that haven't blocked me for pointing out their wrongness
Last week’s story: “Dems open borders bringing in Hispanics to replace white Americans.” This week’s story: “Dems losing support among Hispanic voters to Republicans.” Next week: “Dems [verb] [adjective]Hispanics [verb] Republicans.”
"But that’s not how the prestige press operates. Part of the reason is, Dog Bites Man — it’s more newsworthy and fun to suggest Democrats are tighty-whitey and Republicans the new soul men. It’s not true, but it’s fun."
On one hand, mainstream reportage on the important stuff is that there's barely yesterday and nothing before and tomorrow's fine to speculate about wildly and without any need to tie it to facts. Meanwhile, the mainstream also chooses to not care about framing or, again, providing any contexts. Nearly everything is thus little more than abstractions, vibes, feels.
Or, you know, bullshit, little better yet far more harmful than, I don't know, the stuff in Monday's post, maybe.
Back in the wayward youth, I worked briefly in the very bottom of opinion polling stuff and was near ground zero for how empirical fact was converted into complete bullshit for marketing purposes (although apparently the BS didn't quite work). So between that, cynicism about people now tending to play polltakers, and that Times polling that found that cancel culture is real and even the masses are concerned, I'm at a point of not giving too much weight to Times polls. Too, it can require far more time to dive in, review the questions, parse them for biases, see how the answers are tallied than JFC just describing that just involved more time than it's worth at this point in life. Let's leave it that I get a bad whiff from it.
Meanwhile, regarding the press, the GOP and inflation: Still waiting to see a simple explanation why jacking up interest rates would any way resolve this round of inflation. As an old, I know the theory but I don't see any way that it's applicable now beyond making the Powers That Be and Wall Street happy which, BTW, has nothing to do with this round of inflation.
As for the media and the Rs, waiting for our exceptional mainstream press to ask Republican pols when they whine about the shitty job Biden's doing what their solution is. The closest thing they have is wanting Voelker 2.0 which... I don't have the interest in gong into now. But I tend to repeat so probably sooner rather than later I'll drop that rant. And if you know what 1.0 did, you can surmise what good v.2.0 would do.
"Let's leave it that I get a bad whiff from it." one benefit of aging is, you wind up having at least passing and accidental acquaintance with how sausage is made.
Doing some light googling tells me that Volcker raise interest rates to more than 20% by 1981. That led to a recession. Republicans are A-OK with that.
Laid the foundation for massive impoverishment of the working and middle classes. To an extent, workers and even professional classes still haven’t recovered. And as I touched on, I’m unclear how increased interest rates will help now.
I saw 'Voekler 2.0' and envisioned Thomas Voeckler 2 dashing away from the Tour de France peloton, tongue wagging, face contorted, and the fans going bananas...
Picking up on a thread from yesterday's conversation, the notion that Hispanics would ever vote for the Democrats in the percentages that Black folks do was always a fantasy (and the basis, I think, for Ruy Teixeira's Emerging Democratic Majority.) As Ta-Nehisi Coates likes to say, Whiteness is always open for redefinition if needed to maintain a majority. Also Coates: There's only ONE ethnic group that's excluded from Whiteness.
I think maybe you're referring to the Shenandoah Hungarian Rioters of the Central Pennsylvania League. The club lasted just one year (1888). The Shenandoah Huns were a separate club also in PA, lasting 2 years (1894/95).
Year Record Finish Manager
1888 28-22 2 J.M. Crinnan
1889 1-14 NA J. J. Monaghan
(Entered the league July 17 and disbanded August 6)
1894 55-55 NA Martin Swift / George Goetz
(Split record Scranton (45-28), Shenandoah(10-27))
Hispanics are nowhere as close to being monolithic vote-wise as Blacks. Hispanics come from a couple of dozen nations which is to say societies, American Blacks are kind of, well, monolithic *that* way.
So expecting Hispanics to be hardcore Dem voters like Blacks of course didn’t make sense.
Too, the shift of Hispanics to the Republicans in 2020 were more like a shift of some Hispanics in some parts of the nation.
"The Latino voters prefer Democrats too, but it’s much closer — 41% to 38%. The tightness is significant. Those voters went overwhelmingly for Biden in 2020, so you can’t say that for Democrats the numbers are good news."
There's another issue here that pundits are determined to ignore: They assume that Latinos are nonwhite, but as the Census always reminds us "Hispanics may be of any race". Traditionally it's white Hispanics, especially Cuban and and Mexican, who vote Republican, and Black (Puerto Rican and Dominican) and Indigenous (especially Mexican) Hispanics who vote Democratic. It's not completely clear (the relevant Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans is really badly written) but the increase in Latino Republicans probably matches an increase in the number of Latinos who regard themselves as white from 2000 to 2020, become more dominant English speakers, and taken on Republican views on immigration and taxes.
What it is not is a great sign for Democrats, as you say, but it's also not a sign that Republicans are becoming more "mulitracial", any more than their desperate reach after terrible candidates like Herschel Walker and Mayra Flores does.
Good point. People of certain ethnicities are allowed to decide which ethnicity they would like to identify with, and their are real advantages to picking "White." (I think we all know which ethnicity is not allowed this choice.) It's like how Whiteness once excluded the Irish and your swarthier Europeans, but then took these groups in as the number of WASPS declined as a percentage of the population (there's even a book, "How the Irish Became White").
I think it's interesting that the career paths that many Irish and Italian immigrants chose on their pathway to Whiteness - the police and military - are also the paths chosen by many Hispanic immigrants. Working for ICE, for example, is a solid middle-class job with retirement and benefits where being bilingual is an advantage, but it's also a job that is going to mess with your ethnic identity and politics.
All the above in support of my theory that the reason the 2020 census 'uncovered' so many 'mixed' or 'blended' races/ethnicities is because so many more people are righteously disgusted with what 'white' people have been doing recently that they refuse to be associated therewith anymore.
Yes, Hispanic is a wide-ranging category on government demographic forms, and as you note can mean anything from White Hispanic to Black Hispanic to Chinese Filipino Hispanic, et al.
I read somewhere that the percentage of scientists who now self-identify as Republican is in the single digits, and maybe even the low single digits. Just one small factoid in the overall trend of Democrats becoming "The Party of Educated Professionals".
So now I'm wondering: Exactly how many OB-GYN's need to be jailed before doctors (usually a reliably Republican constituency given their wealth) might follow scientists down the same path?
We are an engineering school and most academic engineers function, research-wise, as scientists. We do have a geology and a geological engineering, and a paleontology program
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Whenever media types (or anybody) reference polls or stats it's always worth a few extra minutes to click on the links and take a gander at the numbers yourself. Invariably, there is at least one "what the fuck are they talking about?" moment when you see that the numbers don't support the conclusions supposedly based on their "analysis" of them. For example, as Roy points out, Axios claiming "Democrats now have a bigger advantage among white college graduates than they do with nonwhite voters, according to a New York Times/Siena College poll." First off, there is only one question about Dem/Rep preference at all, there is no category of "nonwhite voters", and, as Roy indicates, in the answer to this one question, the preference of Black voters for Dems is 75%, with Hispanics at only 3% -- either way, how do you distill this to a result for "non-white voters"? Second, the Dem preference for white college-educated voters is 41%. How is that a bigger advantage than "non-white voters?"
The rank dishonesty of these writers is sometimes breathtaking, especially when they actually link to the numbers they're supposedly writing about, knowing that few readers, if any, will look for themselves.
Then there's the reliability of these survey polls at all. But that's a whole other issue.
the preference of Black voters for Dems is 75%, with Hispanics at only 3% -- either way, how do you distill this to a result for "non-white voters"? Second, the Dem preference for white college-educated voters is 41%. How is that a bigger advantage than "non-white voters?
I checked the poll link that Roy provided, and I have no idea how they're getting "Dem preference for white college-educated voters is 41%". For "White, BA+", the Dems are ahead 57-36, which is a 21 point advantage.
I suppose the bullshit argument Axios is trying to make not only requires minimizing the support Dems have among POC, it also requires maximizing the support Dems have among the college-educated.
"a substantial 78% to 3%"
No need for that 'substantial', but you slipped it in there anyway, and THAT's why we read you.
2 marks!
The Axios article is written by the one person who sees the same Black face given strategically close seating at a Trump rally & thinks, "Golly, the Blacks love Trump! Whaddascoop, chief!"
Let's just say that 3% has to punch WAAAAY above its weight.
He's that one Black person at a Trump rally that hasn't been killed by COVID. Yet.
Axios is usually bullshit from top to bottom – it’s the purest, concentrated version of hot take punditry – if other political reporters are like white wine spritzers, Axios is like grain alcohol.
Also, right now EVERYONE hates Dem politicians, including their own voters. The centrist Dems are mad because they think the problem is “wokeness,” and progressive Dems are mad because Biden and the Dem leadership are not being aggressive enough around the threat to civil rights and democracy itself, as well as being mad so little of the Dem agenda has made it through *a Democratic House and Senate.* And *everyone* is mad about inflation.
But I remain very skeptical a substantial number of Black people will vote for the GOP, a party that so *nakedly* seeks their subjugation and immiseration, simply because of the price of gasoline.
Axios, Politico, that one founded by that lame asshole Ezra Klein, - Vox, plus
The Daily Puke or whatever. I get the impression they're mostly staffed by trustfunder kids with real soft B grades in J school who's biggest qualification for a reporters job is the ability to survive an unpaid internship in DC. or New York.
Sorry, electing Republicans will lower the price of gas and otherwise reduce inflation how now?
If it was just for MBS to do, getting yet more compliant puppets might soften his heart. Otherwise…?
Republicans are building a strong, multi-racial coalition that is making significant inroads with Blacks (which is why Republicans are working so very hard to keep Black people from voting), Latinos (which is why Republicans want to deport most of them), LGBQT+ folks (which is why Republicans want to kill most of them), and the working class (which Republicans believe should be happy to work for subsistence wages).
This is the only TRUE demonstration of inclusivity: a big "fuck you" to everybody who isn't a donor.
"Most diverse class of Republican candidates ever" is like "Tallest man in Munchkin Land."
Oh gods thank you Roy. This bs piece has been plastered all over the LGM comment section by panicked commenters who ought to know better, and when I’ve tried to point out it’s nature I get slammed for sticking my head in the sand.
There are commenters at LGM who apparently self-identify with lawyers, guns, money or some combination of those three. Getting slammed there can mean you’re right.
There was a commenter over at alicublog who would go and hang at LGM pretty often. I was giving him some shit about it. He said it was kind of an acquired taste. I said, well they certainly have an astute grasp of the obvious. He said one of the things that he liked over there was how sometimes, everybody involved in a comment thread talked over and past everybody else. He said it was like all at once everybody started huffing their own farts. I said, Well, if that's how you like to spend your time... He said it was way better than Balloon Juice- they huff each other's farts over there
"sometimes, everybody involved in a comment thread talked over and past everybody else...." I confess I never read comments there, nor anywhere -- except here and alicublog, because the quality is so consistently high (and also out of professional responsibility).
There are some highly intelligent people who occasionally have good insights, but if the thread starts turning into Team D Defense Squad (h/t Atrios), it’s time to bail before my brain melts.
Yes, exactly. The collapse thread - is useful when someone posts a frivolous comment and 30 comments are posted in reply. I avoid all the obscure pop culture and D&D references that way.
dang those are like 75% of my comments
There are a number of know-it-alls who comment at LGM, but there are also some very sharp ones. I think the commentariat there are predominantly academics and lawyers, like the bloggers, who can be very insightful and informative.
I comment there only occasionally, and usually only in an insubstantial way. Like I do here!
As an authentic know-it-all I comment fairly frequently at LGM. I am an academic, too
Yes, but you are in the hard sciences, not Econ or Poli Sci.
I admit, I frequent LGM, but I always, always, reach a point where I go "WTF am I doing here". The last time I bolted was over the argument that a twitter following equates a voting constituency (narrator: it doesn't). I am about to bolt again, because we should be talking about replacing Republican'ts, not talking about replacing Democrats...
There are some actual smart people there, and occasionally some good comments, but there are way too many centrist know-it-alls whose only joy in life is to punch left. Also, way too many commenters simply love to argue, and the more abstruse the point, the more pedantic they get.
I once had the temerity to suggest that, instead of spending $1 million on TV ads (a relatively small ad buy these days, I think) you could pay a thousand people in dem-leaning neighborhoods $1000 each to be a Block Captain, their only job being to get everyone on their block registered and to the polls. I was immediately informed that I am a Silly Child, and should leave the management of campaigns to the Serious Adults.
The leadership is handling everything perfectly! And if they lose that race, it’s just proof that the race is unwinnable and we need to yell at the voters some more. “You owe us your votes, you silly children. Now shut up and clap louder like you’re told!”
You don't understand, your comment could make the difference between Dems winning and losing
I get that way more at Balloon Juice, which is way more centrist than LGM
I feel for you. Another typical interaction is to point out that X isn’t working, so maybe the Dem leadership should try Y or something else, only to be furiously attacked as a Bernie Bro, Dirtbag Left, or divisive. (Calling people divisive as they’re savaging them for offering constructive criticism is *chef’s kiss*)
If you want to make friends with a Progressive, tell them some bad news.
Well mostly the centrist flacks that worry about the Dems being too (meaning any) woke are who are worried at LGM. But then they are always worried. Well, at least the ones that haven't blocked me for pointing out their wrongness
"what I would call a substantial 78% to 3%."
That's just, like, your opinion.
And every one of that 3% is either running for Congress or standing behind Trump on a stage with a Blacks for Trump t-shirt.
Last week’s story: “Dems open borders bringing in Hispanics to replace white Americans.” This week’s story: “Dems losing support among Hispanic voters to Republicans.” Next week: “Dems [verb] [adjective]Hispanics [verb] Republicans.”
We don't call them "Mad Libs" for nothing, dontcha know?
"But that’s not how the prestige press operates. Part of the reason is, Dog Bites Man — it’s more newsworthy and fun to suggest Democrats are tighty-whitey and Republicans the new soul men. It’s not true, but it’s fun."
On one hand, mainstream reportage on the important stuff is that there's barely yesterday and nothing before and tomorrow's fine to speculate about wildly and without any need to tie it to facts. Meanwhile, the mainstream also chooses to not care about framing or, again, providing any contexts. Nearly everything is thus little more than abstractions, vibes, feels.
Or, you know, bullshit, little better yet far more harmful than, I don't know, the stuff in Monday's post, maybe.
Back in the wayward youth, I worked briefly in the very bottom of opinion polling stuff and was near ground zero for how empirical fact was converted into complete bullshit for marketing purposes (although apparently the BS didn't quite work). So between that, cynicism about people now tending to play polltakers, and that Times polling that found that cancel culture is real and even the masses are concerned, I'm at a point of not giving too much weight to Times polls. Too, it can require far more time to dive in, review the questions, parse them for biases, see how the answers are tallied than JFC just describing that just involved more time than it's worth at this point in life. Let's leave it that I get a bad whiff from it.
Meanwhile, regarding the press, the GOP and inflation: Still waiting to see a simple explanation why jacking up interest rates would any way resolve this round of inflation. As an old, I know the theory but I don't see any way that it's applicable now beyond making the Powers That Be and Wall Street happy which, BTW, has nothing to do with this round of inflation.
As for the media and the Rs, waiting for our exceptional mainstream press to ask Republican pols when they whine about the shitty job Biden's doing what their solution is. The closest thing they have is wanting Voelker 2.0 which... I don't have the interest in gong into now. But I tend to repeat so probably sooner rather than later I'll drop that rant. And if you know what 1.0 did, you can surmise what good v.2.0 would do.
"Let's leave it that I get a bad whiff from it." one benefit of aging is, you wind up having at least passing and accidental acquaintance with how sausage is made.
I don’t know or remember exactly what Voelker did back then, but I do know what the GOP’s one-size-fits-all solution is. Tax cuts! For the rich!
Doing some light googling tells me that Volcker raise interest rates to more than 20% by 1981. That led to a recession. Republicans are A-OK with that.
Laid the foundation for massive impoverishment of the working and middle classes. To an extent, workers and even professional classes still haven’t recovered. And as I touched on, I’m unclear how increased interest rates will help now.
That money went to Wall Street, which boomed, then crashed in 1987. But Reagan said it was "morning in America" again so everything turned out fine.
Instead now, the Republican standard-bearer is someone who won't read his lines properly, unlike Reagan.
You're being much too kind to St. Ronnie.
And Donnie's lines don't matter -- none of their lines matter all that much -- as long he gets the GOP voters engaged.
I saw 'Voekler 2.0' and envisioned Thomas Voeckler 2 dashing away from the Tour de France peloton, tongue wagging, face contorted, and the fans going bananas...
"His nickname is le Chouchou which means Sweetheart"
Don't think anybody called the other guy Sweetheart.
Does the working class include women? Or do they just stay home and take care of the kids and do their nails?
They're doing their kids' nails now? GROOOOOMMMMERS!!!
EVEN THE BOYS
Picking up on a thread from yesterday's conversation, the notion that Hispanics would ever vote for the Democrats in the percentages that Black folks do was always a fantasy (and the basis, I think, for Ruy Teixeira's Emerging Democratic Majority.) As Ta-Nehisi Coates likes to say, Whiteness is always open for redefinition if needed to maintain a majority. Also Coates: There's only ONE ethnic group that's excluded from Whiteness.
Hungarians! No, Italians! Czechs! Wait; I’ll come in again.
Sheboygan once had a minor league baseball team called the Sheboygan Hungarian Rioters.
I think maybe you're referring to the Shenandoah Hungarian Rioters of the Central Pennsylvania League. The club lasted just one year (1888). The Shenandoah Huns were a separate club also in PA, lasting 2 years (1894/95).
Year Record Finish Manager
1888 28-22 2 J.M. Crinnan
1889 1-14 NA J. J. Monaghan
(Entered the league July 17 and disbanded August 6)
1894 55-55 NA Martin Swift / George Goetz
(Split record Scranton (45-28), Shenandoah(10-27))
1895 1-14 NA Bill Brennan
(Team disbanded on May 20)
Right, it was Shenandoah, not Sheboygan. That's what I get for not getting a Hungarian Rioters t-shirt when the opportunity presented itself
WANT
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/108790147229494390/
Sadly they are no longer offered at Ebbetts Field Flannels
To hell with that, I want a shirt from the Sheboygan Conservatory of Music.
Still a chance to smear some Hun bootblack under your eyes on game day tho.
Hispanics are nowhere as close to being monolithic vote-wise as Blacks. Hispanics come from a couple of dozen nations which is to say societies, American Blacks are kind of, well, monolithic *that* way.
So expecting Hispanics to be hardcore Dem voters like Blacks of course didn’t make sense.
Too, the shift of Hispanics to the Republicans in 2020 were more like a shift of some Hispanics in some parts of the nation.
Too, the shift of Hispanics to the Republicans in 2020 were more like a shift of some Hispanics in some parts of the nation.
and mostly from 3rd Party voters to Repubs. Biden's vote share of Hispanics was basically the same as Clinton's in 2016
"The Latino voters prefer Democrats too, but it’s much closer — 41% to 38%. The tightness is significant. Those voters went overwhelmingly for Biden in 2020, so you can’t say that for Democrats the numbers are good news."
There's another issue here that pundits are determined to ignore: They assume that Latinos are nonwhite, but as the Census always reminds us "Hispanics may be of any race". Traditionally it's white Hispanics, especially Cuban and and Mexican, who vote Republican, and Black (Puerto Rican and Dominican) and Indigenous (especially Mexican) Hispanics who vote Democratic. It's not completely clear (the relevant Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans is really badly written) but the increase in Latino Republicans probably matches an increase in the number of Latinos who regard themselves as white from 2000 to 2020, become more dominant English speakers, and taken on Republican views on immigration and taxes.
What it is not is a great sign for Democrats, as you say, but it's also not a sign that Republicans are becoming more "mulitracial", any more than their desperate reach after terrible candidates like Herschel Walker and Mayra Flores does.
Good point. People of certain ethnicities are allowed to decide which ethnicity they would like to identify with, and their are real advantages to picking "White." (I think we all know which ethnicity is not allowed this choice.) It's like how Whiteness once excluded the Irish and your swarthier Europeans, but then took these groups in as the number of WASPS declined as a percentage of the population (there's even a book, "How the Irish Became White").
I think it's interesting that the career paths that many Irish and Italian immigrants chose on their pathway to Whiteness - the police and military - are also the paths chosen by many Hispanic immigrants. Working for ICE, for example, is a solid middle-class job with retirement and benefits where being bilingual is an advantage, but it's also a job that is going to mess with your ethnic identity and politics.
ICE is such a great example.
Jay Gould's wisecrack about "I could pay half the working class to murder the other half" comes to mind.
All the above in support of my theory that the reason the 2020 census 'uncovered' so many 'mixed' or 'blended' races/ethnicities is because so many more people are righteously disgusted with what 'white' people have been doing recently that they refuse to be associated therewith anymore.
Could go the other way, "Hey, how can I get some o' this White Privilege I been hearin' about?"
I think we all know which ethnicity is not allowed this choice
Native Americans?
Yes, Hispanic is a wide-ranging category on government demographic forms, and as you note can mean anything from White Hispanic to Black Hispanic to Chinese Filipino Hispanic, et al.
I read somewhere that the percentage of scientists who now self-identify as Republican is in the single digits, and maybe even the low single digits. Just one small factoid in the overall trend of Democrats becoming "The Party of Educated Professionals".
So now I'm wondering: Exactly how many OB-GYN's need to be jailed before doctors (usually a reliably Republican constituency given their wealth) might follow scientists down the same path?
Would that path be primrose? Beaten? Overgrown? Foot? Tow? Em?
the percentage of scientists who now self-identify as Republican is in the single digits
I think all the ones that do are at my school
Probably depends on whether you classify Economics as a science.
We do not have any economists at my school
Oil company geologists? Other than that, I'm drawing a blank.
Bingo!
We are an engineering school and most academic engineers function, research-wise, as scientists. We do have a geology and a geological engineering, and a paleontology program
Our niece got a meteorology degree from there.
What’s happening: House Republicans boast this year's class of new candidates is the most diverse in history.
Have they hit double digits on the number of PoC candidates? They have many crazy women, but they have many more crazy men candidates.
I think they're counting Mayra Flores twice.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Whenever media types (or anybody) reference polls or stats it's always worth a few extra minutes to click on the links and take a gander at the numbers yourself. Invariably, there is at least one "what the fuck are they talking about?" moment when you see that the numbers don't support the conclusions supposedly based on their "analysis" of them. For example, as Roy points out, Axios claiming "Democrats now have a bigger advantage among white college graduates than they do with nonwhite voters, according to a New York Times/Siena College poll." First off, there is only one question about Dem/Rep preference at all, there is no category of "nonwhite voters", and, as Roy indicates, in the answer to this one question, the preference of Black voters for Dems is 75%, with Hispanics at only 3% -- either way, how do you distill this to a result for "non-white voters"? Second, the Dem preference for white college-educated voters is 41%. How is that a bigger advantage than "non-white voters?"
The rank dishonesty of these writers is sometimes breathtaking, especially when they actually link to the numbers they're supposedly writing about, knowing that few readers, if any, will look for themselves.
Then there's the reliability of these survey polls at all. But that's a whole other issue.
the preference of Black voters for Dems is 75%, with Hispanics at only 3% -- either way, how do you distill this to a result for "non-white voters"? Second, the Dem preference for white college-educated voters is 41%. How is that a bigger advantage than "non-white voters?
(75+3)/2 < 41
I checked the poll link that Roy provided, and I have no idea how they're getting "Dem preference for white college-educated voters is 41%". For "White, BA+", the Dems are ahead 57-36, which is a 21 point advantage.
I suppose the bullshit argument Axios is trying to make not only requires minimizing the support Dems have among POC, it also requires maximizing the support Dems have among the college-educated.
Sorry. "41" was my typo. I meant "21" I swear. Either way, I don't know where they got "nonwhite" even as a category.
OK, so now we're back to how 21 can be more than the average of 75 and 3.
And I think "nonwhite" is the new, woke phraseology, replacing "off-white".
Was your father a conductor on the Baltimore & Ohio?
No, he just kind of smelled bad
Sorry, forgot to mention how excited I am to learn that abortion rights is now a concern of only "upscale voters"!
That makes these t-shirts supporting the Hoosier Abortion fund the latest in Haute Couture!
https://www.bonfire.com/hoosieraf/