Part of the problem with Trump analysis is that it assumes his election was a one-off fluke occurrence, not a culmination of trends. 1/
Like, when you correct for national effects (e.g., subtract the national vote share), this is the trend among whites w/o college degrees: 2/pic.twitter.com/zhWnpTinmB
-
-
Everything is true, until it isn't. I'm old enough to remember when the trends favored the Democrats. Leaders change trends
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But don't you think he (and his outsider status) super-charged turnout in this demo, particularly relative to Mitt.
-
I think it *mattered*, but I don't think it was as radical of a departure as people like to believe.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The notion that this could mostly be the result of non-fluke factors is more unsettling than the opposite, which is why ppl resist it 3/
-
I suppose we'll have another test in 4 years. 4/4
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
GOP ID or GOP Pres vote?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
That change, though, could have been overcome by changes among whites w/college degrees, but wasn't. It could in 200.
-
Oh sure. I'm not guaranteeing a win, or even betting on it. Just saying that 2016 doesn't have many sharp jerks on trendlines.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@davidshor I think one factor is not the same voters but rather how many New Deal Working class white Democrats have passed away.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.