Trump won because college-educated Americans are out of touch

[Churchmouse]

8 minutes ago, Out of the Shadows said:

And we would not have doctors and teachers and nurses and engineers and...well you get the idea.  It is always interesting to read the views of education from different groups of people.

well, I think the media has a big role in the divisions in America, not because they have a political stake in doing so, but if they can fabricate drams they can benefit by it by sensationalize everything for or against their readership, so they can sell more paper. If mankind could get over ourselves the newspapers would be in dire straights.

[Running Gator]

3 minutes ago, Steve_S said:

He won college educated white *republicans* according to exit polls. I don't know where you get the 2 percent overall number, but that sounds absurd. No major demographic could've possibly went to hillary at 98 percent with how the numbers turned out. My guess is that a lot of people simply did not want to tell exit pollsters that they voted for him, because they didn't want to be judged. That also speaks to a bigger problem in the country, though, if true.

Sorry, typed that too fast.  White college voters prefered Trump by 4% (was thinking it was 2, my mistake.  Need to stick to one forum at a time!  lol

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501378673/how-trump-won-according-to-the-exit-polls

[Running Gator]

2 minutes ago, Churchmouse said:

well, I think the media has a big role in the divisions in America, not because they have a political stake in doing so, but if they can fabricate drams they can benefit by it by sensationalize everything for or against their readership, so they can sell more paper. If mankind could get over ourselves the newspapers would be in dire straights.

The media is playing it's part in keeping the country divided, that I agree with.  The people who pull the strings want us divided, a divided people are much easier to control.

[Steve_S]

4 minutes ago, Out of the Shadows said:

Sorry, typed that too fast.  White college voters prefered Trump by 4% (was thinking it was 2, my mistake.  Need to stick to one forum at a time!  lol

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501378673/how-trump-won-according-to-the-exit-polls

Ah, that makes more sense. I read it as you saying that he only *got* 2 percent of the white college vote. That number may be accurate, but it's probably a bit low in the states that really mattered, particularly Florida? Florida isn't a rust belt state and there was a pretty big minority turnout apparently. I don't know how he wins without at least a decent share of the white college educated voters. But, either way, I tend to have other theories on why he won that are probably a lot more mundane than most.

[Running Gator]

3 minutes ago, Steve_S said:

Ah, that makes more since. I read it as you saying that he only *got* 2 percent of the white college vote. That number may be accurate, but it's probably a bit low in the states that really mattered, particularly Florida? Florida isn't a rust belt state and there was a pretty big minority turnout apparently. I don't know how he wins without at least a decent share of the white college voters. But, either way, I tend to have other theories on why he won that are probably a lot more mundane than most.

The way I worded it I understand why you took it that way, I worded it very poorly, I apologize for that. 

Personally I think that Trump won because his opponent was just that bad, that in the end it was hard for those who really opposed Trump to stomach Hillary enough to have the turnout she needed.  I can understand why that is, she is a despicable human being.   I do not hold Trump in any higher regard right now, I truly hope he proves me wrong over the next 4 years.  I will say his victory speech last night was the best he has ever given and I hope that was a glimpse of the real him, and not just an act. 

[Steve_S]

1 minute ago, Out of the Shadows said:

The way I worded it I understand why you took it that way, I worded it very poorly, I apologize for that. 

Personally I think that Trump won because his opponent was just that bad, that in the end it was hard for those who really opposed Trump to stomach Hillary enough to have the turnout she needed.  I can understand why that is, she is a despicable human being.   I do not hold Trump in any higher regard right now, I truly hope he proves me wrong over the next 4 years.  I will say his victory speech last night was the best he has ever given and I hope that was a glimpse of the real him, and not just an act. 

I agree that Hillary was bad, Bernie may have given him a real run in hindsight. I also agree that it was his best speech - I am no huge fan of trump either, personally, but it was probably the best speech he's given.

To me, there are two main things that I can really single out looking back.

I think Hillary, at the very least, opened the door in the rust belt when she made the coal comments. I got the feeling that it wasn't going to just be coal miners that took that personally, but pretty much any blue collar hourly worker who does skilled labor in general industry, particularly those who are already out of work. This comment about putting coal miners out of work may have cost her the election. I realize that she may have been trying to say something else, but the sound bite was the sound bite, and a lot of people felt that rather than a slip of the tongue, she just accidentally said what she actually felt.

The second is how everybody descended upon trump, particularly in the period from 6 weeks out to 2 weeks out, and the media in particular. There was a point in the election where the New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, CNN, etc., pretty much just dumped any cloak of even pretending to be impartial. He was getting it from a large number of members of his own party, including two former presidents and two former presidential candidates who had pledged to support him, the media, the democrats, and foreign countries were telegraphing how scared they were. Now, I don't think that people felt bad for him and decided to vote for him because he was attacked, but, I get a sense that they just gave him the opportunity to look tough, unflinching, and relentless. Real leaders simply do not drop off, even when they are on the ropes, and he didn't, he never gave up, kept doing four rallies a day, kept fighting back against accusations, etc. That may have brought some republicans home and really, really turned his base out.

If we just look at the poll averages in a very generic manner and shift everything four points towards trump (which I think is probably the easiest way to do it, given what actually happened), then in the 2 weeks before the election he began shifting (even before the comey announcement had time to sink in) and ended up from 4 down to even in the popular and from anywhere from 1 to 3 down in the battlegrounds to even to up 1 or 2. (The preelection averages would've had this at in the 7-8 down range in the popular before the shift started and in the 3-4 range down after the shift and something similar in the average battleground).

 

[Ezra]

3 hours ago, ENOCH2010 said:

The non college kids haven't had their heads pumped full of the liberal garbage.

Well said, Enoch.  And most people don't know (or don't understand) that Marxist Communism is ultimately behind socialism, liberalism, and progressivism.  

The Communists had a goal in their heyday to undermine and destroy America through its education systems.  That goal was promoted by the majority of professors, who turned the universities and colleges into hotbeds of liberalism.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks. - See more at: http://rense.com/general32/americ.htm#sthash.O9jpB4XW.dpuf

The sad fact is that most of the Ivy League colleges were staunchly conservative Christian to begin with. But just as the Bible colleges and seminaries turned theologically liberal, higher education went in that direction also.

[nebula]

1 hour ago, Steve_S said:

 But, either way, I tend to have other theories on why he won that are probably a lot more mundane than most.

For the record, the author shouldn't have headlined it as *the* reason Trump won. But I do believe the author makes a good point about the separation between the culture of the academia class and the culture of the working class.

The academia culture has a problem with intellectual arrogance (I speak this as an academia myself whom God had to teach humility via the contrite grinder). 

I recall an episode in Big Bang Theory where the car breaks down and the one character asks his buddies, "Anybody know anything about internal combustion engines?" The other three respond, "Of course!" and "That's [something] technology!" The guy asks, "Does anybody know how to fix an internal combustion engine?" And the guys respond, "No, not a clue."

There is a disconnect between the world of academia and the hands-on world. 

I recall a joke: Our education is set up such that the A students are taught to teach the B students how to work for the C students.

 

I know I'm kind of rambling, but I'm not sure how to put into words what I'm thinking.

The author says things that I believe are very accurate about the mindset of the academia - news media - and the like, and how foreign the mindset of those that aren't academically inclined are to them.

[Steve_S]

13 minutes ago, nebula said:

For the record, the author shouldn't have headlined it as *the* reason Trump won. But I do believe the author makes a good point about the separation between the culture of the academia class and the culture of the working class.

The academia culture has a problem with intellectual arrogance (I speak this as an academia myself whom God had to teach humility via the contrite grinder). 

I recall an episode in Big Bang Theory where the car breaks down and the one character asks his buddies, "Anybody know anything about internal combustion engines?" The other three respond, "Of course!" and "That's [something] technology!" The guy asks, "Does anybody know how to fix an internal combustion engine?" And the guys respond, "No, not a clue."

There is a disconnect between the world of academia and the hands-on world. 

I recall a joke: Our education is set up such that the A students are taught to teach the B students how to work for the C students.

 

I know I'm kind of rambling, but I'm not sure how to put into words what I'm thinking.

The author says things that I believe are very accurate about the mindset of the academia - news media - and the like, and how foreign the mindset of those that aren't academically inclined are to them.

It does not surprise me that this is the case. I understand the logic behind the OP. I also think there is truth to it. However, I do view it through a slightly different lens, in that I think the intellectual arrogance of the academic culture (a fine way to put it, by the way) in general, along with the the political class (which at the very least cross-pollinates with academia, so to speak) being totally oblivious to everything (seemingly, anyway) are what set the conditions for the election to happen. I think events transpired during the campaign, specific, at least partially identifiable, occurrences, that led to his victory.

It looks something like this to me:

• Political Class/Academia (henceforth referred to as the "establishment") focuses on free trade/enfranchisement of undocumented immigrants/globalization/climate change.
• By the first 2016 primary election season, the upper echelons of both political parties are very similar in their stances on these issues (with a mild exception to climate change).
• By the first primary in 2016, large numbers of manufacturing and skilled labor jobs have disappeared from the United States over a period of 30 years. Over the last 15 years there is also an increased competition for certain jobs from undocumented immigrants.
• Two candidates mount outsider insurgencies, one in each party. Both are largely mocked. Both are dismissed by the "establishment" as being nonviable. It is assumed by the vast majority of political experts that neither will fare successfully once people begin casting votes.
• The Republican insurgent wins, the Democratic insurgent loses (barely).
• A continued unwillingness by the "establishment" to address the above issues with anything than the same previous rhetoric leads to a volatile general election climate.
• The Republican insurgent candidate is again roundly mocked by nearly the entirety of the establishment and repudiated by many in his own party, including two former presidents and a sitting governor.
• Events transpire throughout the course of the actual election that make it more likely that the Republican insurgent will win and the Democratic "establishment" candidate will lose (see my previous post for an explanation of what I believe were the two key things).
• Conventional wisdom throughout the entire of the campaign, until probably 11 p.m. EST on election night is that the "establishment" candidate will win a moderately close election, but without too much trouble.
• Insurgent candidate wins.

[The_Patriot21]

I have some college education, though im now working a job that requires no college education, my wife has her degree and still voted Trump.....Trump may have won by non college educated people....but has it occured to the liberals out there, that a very large proportion of the population works blue collar jobs, and the lack of a college education doesnt make them stupid. in fact, I would say it makes them that much less likely to be brainwashed.