Interesting piece linked below from Thomas Edsell at NYT. Among the findings:

"Perhaps most significant, Kitschelt and Rehm found that the common assumption that the contemporary Republican Party has become crucially dependent on the white working class defined as whites without college degrees is overly simplistic.

Instead, Kitschelt and Rehm find that the surge of whites into the Republican Party has been led by whites with relatively high incomes in the top two quintiles of the income distribution but without college degrees, a constituency that is now decisively committed to the Republican Party.

Kitschelt and Rehm write:

Individuals in the low-education/high-income group tend to endorse authoritarian noneconomic policies and tend to oppose progressive economic policies. Small business owners and shopkeepers particularly in construction, crafts, retail, and personal services as well as some of their salaried associates populate this group.

Low-income whites without college degrees have moved to the Republican Party, but because they frequently hold liberal economic views that is, they support redistributionist measures from which they benefit they are conflicted in their partisan allegiance.

The authors point out that members of this group

tend to support progressive economic policies and tend to endorse authoritarian policies on the noneconomic dimension. In occupational terms, this group consists primarily of low-skill and intermediate routine blue-collar manufacturing or clerical-administrative jobs (the 'working class').

We Aren't Seeing White Support for Trump for What It Is
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/28/opinion/trump-white-voters.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

Theses two groups have also gone Republican:

Sounds like the petite bourgeoisie, the lower class merchants and peasant who align with the high bourgeoisie on economic terms, but not class terms. High bougie own the means of production, aka corporations in the U.S.

Babbit

Drinks on AnarchistBear woo hoo! It's a free for all!

BearForce2 said:

---

Drinks on AnarchistBear woo hoo! It's a free for all!

---

Unfortunately for tRump and his supporters, Hillary lost, is no longer a player, and thus a wholly irrelevant and ineffective target to use for distraction purposes.

In other news:

Trump Campaign Spokesperson Floors CNN's Chris Cuomo: Trump Has Never Lied to American People

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-campaign-spokesperson-kayleigh-mcenany-to-cnns-chris-cuomo-trump-has-never-lied-to-american-people

WHY SO MANY TRUMP SUPPORTERS ARE OK WITH THE PRESIDENT'S LIES

https://www.google.com/amp/s/psmag.com/.amp/news/why-so-many-trump-supporters-are-ok-with-the-presidents-lies

"The research, published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences, finds Republicans are more likely than Democrats or independents to consider overt lying on the part of a politician morally acceptable behavior. This difference is largely driven by Trump supporters' endorsement of authoritarianism."

Anarchistbear said:

---

Interesting piece linked below from Thomas Edsell at NYT. Among the findings:

"Perhaps most significant, Kitschelt and Rehm found that the common assumption that the contemporary Republican Party has become crucially dependent on the white working class defined as whites without college degrees is overly simplistic.

Instead, Kitschelt and Rehm find that the surge of whites into the Republican Party has been led by whites with relatively high incomes in the top two quintiles of the income distribution but without college degrees, a constituency that is now decisively committed to the Republican Party.

Kitschelt and Rehm write:

Individuals in the low-education/high-income group tend to endorse authoritarian noneconomic policies and tend to oppose progressive economic policies. Small business owners and shopkeepers particularly in construction, crafts, retail, and personal services as well as some of their salaried associates populate this group.

Low-income whites without college degrees have moved to the Republican Party, but because they frequently hold liberal economic views that is, they support redistributionist measures from which they benefit they are conflicted in their partisan allegiance.

The authors point out that members of this group

tend to support progressive economic policies and tend to endorse authoritarian policies on the noneconomic dimension. In occupational terms, this group consists primarily of low-skill and intermediate routine blue-collar manufacturing or clerical-administrative jobs (the 'working class').

We Aren't Seeing White Support for Trump for What It Is
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/28/opinion/trump-white-voters.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

---

The study is interesting, but the article is conflating republican voters with Trump voters. Look at the charts. The low education/high wealth segment moved to the republican party long before Trump was in the picture. With the advent of Trump, low education/low wealth voters went for Trump while high education voters have moved to the democrats. Exactly as the conventional wisdom says.

What is interesting is that they are basically saying that high education correlates to socially liberal, low education correlates to socially conservative. High income correlates to fiscally conservative, Low income correlates to economically populist. So low education + high income = conservative. Thus republican. Low education + low income = socially conservative, economically populist. Thus conflicted. Trump was able to convince enough of that group that he was an economic populist, thus the best of both worlds for them.

My experience in California is that high education/high income voters are conflicted, but they can only be pushed so far on social issues. I grew up in a community that changed very rapidly from predominantly republican to predominantly democrat and ultimately to very liberal as the republican party changed from socially moderate to socially conservative. I think that is what you are seeing with high education voters moving to the democrats. Of course completely abandoning free trade policies doesn't play well for fiscal conservatives either.

The poetic justice of the situation is that most tRump supporters are shafting themselves by voting for him. Meanwhile, the tRump Crime Family and its inner circle are laughing as they loot the country at the expense of those they consider chumps.

bearister said:

---

Unfortunately for tRump and his supporters, Hillary lost, is no longer a player, and thus a wholly irrelevant and ineffective target to use for distraction purposes.

---

+1

Particularly funny to me that BF2 appears to be trying to gaslight AnarchistBear by posting pictures of Hillary Clinton drinking (the horror), when in fact AnarchistBear is anything but a supporter of Hillary Clinton and other establishment Dems.

I do agree with OTB that the Republicans had already won over the high-income/low-education voters before Trump, and were already in the process of losing most high-education voters. Trump's key right-wing populist appeal that is different from most Republican candidates before him is to low-income/low-education voters, though I'd add that this really only applies to white people in that category. It's not like low-income/low-education non-whites have flocked to Trump (I wonder why).

But in PA, MI and WI, that was enough in 2016. And it will be a huge factor in 2020 as well since those 3 states look like the most likely tipping points, and Dems really need to win all 3.

My essential analysis of Trump supporters is this: if they have not yet picked up on any of his horrible traits (I'll forgo the endless list), then they are dotards thenselves.

Anyone who votes trump come 2020 should be ashamed, embarrassed, humiliated. It's a scarlet letter upon them.

Tell me you support various issues, fine.
Tell me you support trump and I have lost any and all respect for you.

It's been that way for a long time already. Somebody must have been living under a rock to not yet/already know the facts about this monster.