Do you know any poor white people?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm related to some. Accidentally voted no.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm related to some. Accidentally voted no.

I like your picture.  What all does it entail?

It's a painting of the Virgin Mary by a Spanish artist named Francisco Laporta Valor. It seems to be of her at the Annunciation, and the quote below it in my signature is taken from the Magnificat, the little slam poem she recites in response to Gabriel's message. (I'm assuming no knowledge of this because you're a newbie and I don't know what your religious background is; if you already knew some or most of this then I apologize and I'm not trying to talk down to you.) I'm a pretty hardcore Christian socialist, emphasis on both 'Christian' and 'socialist', and the Magnificat is a big part of how I came to that position.

Anyway the usual suspects plus IceSpear are [Inks]ing horrible and as somebody who is the child of a 1. socialist 2. single mother and 3. grew up on and off food stamps in a part of 4. Vermont with 5. Appalachia-y vibes where people 6. cling to guns although not necessarily religion so much and 7. vote for Bernie Sanders, I can tell NYJackass in particular that he's talking out his ass and other urban liberals really ought not to be buying the sh**t he's selling. It's a sin and shame that so many of them are.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

chosen social issues over economic issue.

It's interesting that this is so often treated as such an obviously bad and stupid heuristic. In reality the issue is more likely simply that the views on social issues in question are seen as objectionable (some of them obviously ARE objectionable, of course; others are more debatable). You don't see this argument getting made against rich social liberals who vote for Democrats.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

chosen social issues over economic issue.

It's interesting that this is so often treated as such an obviously bad and stupid heuristic. In reality the issue is more likely simply that the views on social issues in question are seen as objectionable (some of them obviously ARE objectionable, of course; others are more debatable). You don't see this argument getting made against rich social liberals who vote for Democrats.

I am not demonizing them at all for making that choice. Personally, I think it is silly, but for some voters, social issues are just more important then economic issues.

That's more than fair. Plenty of people who make that point do, however, intend for the people to whom they make it to see doing that as inherently and obviously and objectively wrong.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This idea that poor Appalachian whites are not only racist--which many or most are--but so racist that the only way to win their votes is to be seen to be screwing over minorities is, uh, it sure is something.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This idea that poor Appalachian whites are not only racist--which many or most are--but so racist that the only way to win their votes is to be seen to be screwing over minorities is, uh, it sure is something.

It is not just racism though, it is the majority of the Democratic platform that a lot of them just don't agree with.

The Democrats would have to shift to the right on many key issues like gay marriage and gun control to get their votes and even that is questionable seeing what happened to the conservative wing of the party the last couple of election cycles.

Gay marriage is going to fade from salience over the next few years. Gun control I'll grant you.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This idea that poor Appalachian whites are not only racist--which many or most are--but so racist that the only way to win their votes is to be seen to be screwing over minorities is, uh, it sure is something.

The thing you need to understand is that a lot of posters here are completely ignorant about the society in which they live and assume that the crudest stereotypes are the plainest truths. Sometimes the results are bizarre; in this thread we have a curious conflation of 'poor white' with both 'rural' and (implicitly) with 'fundamentalist'. The latter in particular is hilariously dubious.

I've had people tell me that I should be more sympathetic to points of view like IceSpear's because my mother and I have gone from poverty to wealth over the course of my childhood so I Know It Can Be Done. But what that experience actually told me is that it's hard, it's rare, American class divides put up a hell of a lot of resistance even as they give way, and a lot of it is sheer dumb luck. It's true that my mother and I are the only two people I've ever met who've actually lived on food stamps at one point and stock dividends ten years later, but we are the only two.