How Clinton lost Michigan - and blew the election

[136or142]

The idea that white working class voters backed Trump due to "white identity politics" makes no sense whatsoever because so many of them voted for a Black graduate of Harvard Law School who is a champagne sipping, latte liberal. The difference was that he actually made an effort to campaign on tangible policy issues, distanced himself from "special interest groups" (to his credit, Obama earnestly seemed to despise people like George Soros), actually campaigned on accomplishments, like rescuing the auto industry etc.

Maybe white working class voters backed Trump due to "white identity politics". Maybe they're racist. What history should teach you is that this shouldn't matter: the white working class was the bedrock of the Democratic Party from the 60s onward and backed stereotypically liberal candidates against Republicans time and time and time again. The Iron Range of Minnesota never budged in its support for people like McGovern and Humphrey and so on.

So yeah, I think you should pull your head of your rear end and realize that this is prejudice. Do you know who loved George H.W. Bush's blatant and disgusting race-baiting campaign? Affluent "moderates ". Do you know who voted for Dukakis regardless of the fact that he loved Willie Horton Negroes or whatever? A bunch of gun-toting hicks. I suspect that people like you only care about racism when it comes from those people and sounds like it's in the wrong tone but when it sounds respectable and is hidden, it's acceptable and okay.

edit: mostly I think it's wild that a bunch of idiots online think that the white working class is racist meme holds up when so many of these people voted for Obama twice. Maybe they're racist but it's good that Obama tricked racists into voting for him, proof that racism can be shallow and unimportant in the polling place. The less important that is in motivating people, the better. You don't want to encourage people to act on racism by daring them to act on it by scolding them. So dumb that I have to be punished for this mentality when it's white liberals who are promoting it.

Part I

I don't agree the only areas where some working class whites abandoned the Democrats (or Hillary Clinton) was in the Upper Midwest and a few areas of the East.  Most working Class Whites had long deserted the Democrats in the South and in the Southern Midwest (except for parts of Ohio.)

I haven't seen the numbers of working class whites that voted for Hillary Clinton this election, but according to Nate Cohn from the exit polls only 25% of working class whites voted for Barack Obama in 2012 and he says that actually could be as high as 34%.  So, essentially at least 2/3 of working class whites didn't vote for Obama.  So, in fact, a large majority did not vote for Obama twice and likely a clear majority did not vote for Obama once.

I don't know how well George McGovern did with working class whites per se, but he won 1 state and 37.5% of the vote.  Hubert Humphrey likely would have lost a large share of working class whites to George Wallace were it not for his Vice Presidential Running Mate, Curtis LeMay's 'fiasco'

"When Wallace announced his selection in October 1968, a press conference was held that Wallace aide later referred to as a "fiasco". When LeMay was asked if nuclear weapons were necessary to win the war in Vietnam, he responded, "We can win this war without nuclear weapons". However, he then added, "But I have to say, we have a phobia about nuclear weapons. I think there may be times when it would be most efficient to use nuclear weapons".[citation needed] Wallace's staff began to consider LeMay to be "politically tone-deaf" and the former Air Force General did nothing to diminish the perception of extremism that some American voters had of the Wallace-LeMay ticket.[51]

The "bomb them back to the stone age" comment received significant publicity but General LeMay disclaimed the comment, saying in a later interview: “I never said we should bomb them back to the Stone Age. I said we had the capability to do it".[47][48]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay

Prior to that Wallace was polling as high as 30% in a number of Northern States.  You can't simply cherry pick one area of working class whites like the Iron Range and claim they represent all white working class voters

" The impact of the Wallace campaign was substantial, winning the electoral votes of several states in the Deep South. He appeared on the ballot in all fifty states, but not the District of Columbia. Although he did not come close to winning any states outside the South, Wallace was the most popular 1968 presidential candidate among young men.[49] Wallace also proved to be popular among blue-collar workers in the North and Midwest, and he took many votes which might have gone to Humphrey.[citation needed]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1968

And, it seems pretty clear that many people who voted for Wallace in 1968 voted for Nixon in 1972.

[136or142]

Part II

The thing is, I don't write comments that I can't back up, I just don't back every comment up because I think most of my posts are already too long.

Is it prejudice from me or are they prejudiced?

ttps://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/clinton-wasnt-wrong-about-the-deplorables-among-trumps-supporters/2016/09/12/93720264-7932-11e6-beac-57a4a412e93a_story.html?utm_term=.2b278c21cf5e

"Yes, half of Trump supporters are racist

The American National Election Studies, the long-running, extensive poll of American voters, asked voters in 2012 a basic test of prejudice: to rank black and white people on a scale from hardworking to lazy and from intelligent to unintelligent. The researchers found that 62 percent of white people gave black people a lower score in at least one of the attributes. This was a jump in prejudicial attitudes from 2008, when 45 percent of white people expressed negative stereotypes.

This question is a good indicator of how one votes: Republican Mitt Romney won 61 percent of those who expressed negative stereotypes. And, when the question was asked during the 2008 primaries, those with negative racial stereotypes consistently favored Republican candidates — any of them — over any Democratic candidate in hypothetical matchups.

Research by Washington Post pollsters and by University of California at Irvine political scientist Michael Tesler, among others, have found that Trump does best among Americans who express racial animus. Evidence indicates fear that white people are losing ground was the single greatest predictor of support for Trump — more, even, than economic anxiety."

I should also point out that, although I can't find it on the list, I'm pretty sure your view that since white working class voters voted for non racist Democrats in the past that means white working class voters can't be racist now is a logical fallacy.

What might have changed.  Again, these are things that I've written on before:

1.White working class voters feel more threatened now (identity politics) with the increase in the minority population in the United States.

2.White working class voters (not all of them of course) don't mind being economically disenfranchised so much as long as they know that some other group is more disenfranchised than they are.  I quoted    President Lyndon Johnson on that earlier, but there is also this:

http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/13/13848794/kentucky-obamacare-trump

"Many expressed frustration that Obamacare plans cost way too much, that premiums and deductibles had spiraled out of control. And part of their anger was wrapped up in the idea that other people were getting even better, even cheaper benefits — and those other people did not deserve the help."

Maybe there is racism there, maybe not, but it certainly backs up President Johnson:
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

I think in the second sentence Johnson was indicated it didn't have to be visible minorities they had to look down on.

[136or142]

No and No.

Your graph on 2008 may be correct that Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain essentially split the white working class vote in that election.

However, for 2012, largely the same numbers as the Nate Cohn article (I don't know where he got his 25% figure from that he claimed is false in the first place:

Race, on the other hand, makes a huge difference in how people vote.  Nonwhites (Black, Hispanic/Latino, Asian and Other) voted a little more than 80% for Obama while only 39% of whites did that – a difference of more than 40 percentage points.  Both the middle class and the working class gave Obama slight majorities based primarily on nonwhite voters who offset his 20-point loss among whites.
Among whites, the white working class is far from unique in giving Mitt Romney substantial majorities.  Nationally, working-class whites gave Obama only 36% of their vote

https://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2013/01/14/the-white-vote-in-2012-the-obama-coalition/

I mentioned Ohio as a South Midwestern State where working class whites deserted Hillary Clinton, I should also have mentioned Iowa.

[136or142]

Just because President Johnson said it doesn't mean it's fycking right, jesus christ.

Of course not, that's why I posted the link to that article.  However, just because you say that President Johnson might not be right doesn't make you right.

Are you actually a Fidel Castro supporter?

[136or142]

jesus christ adam, you can't blame the electorate for when you lose.

1.I didn't run in this election (or in any election) I personally didn't lose anything.  I'm just commenting on the results.

2.Your statement is normative. The first thing I learned in economics class about normative statements was simply to reply "I can't? Why can't I?"

[136or142]

Characterising WWC as whites with no bachelors, no HS, no college is utterly dumb. WWC, with poorer whites were more democratic than richer whites, that is a fact. You cannot deny that shyte in 2012, the WWC did not vote 36% for the democrats, such a swing is impossible from 08'.

Where do  you get 'no HS, no college' from?

The swing from 2008 is only impossible if your graph on 2008 is correct.  I don't know where you got it from.

I'm not a big fan of the initial exit polls, but this is all I can find, and it clearly disagrees with your graph:

McCain won only 57 percent of the votes of white men, who were again 36 percent of the electorate.

White college graduates, 35 percent of voters, broke for McCain 51 to 47 percent, marking roughly a 3-point gain for Obama compared to Gore’s 44 percent showing.

http://www.politico.com/story/2008/11/exit-polls-how-obama-won-015297

[136or142]

You don't want to encourage people to act on racism by daring them to act on it by scolding them. So dumb that I have to be punished for this mentality when it's white liberals who are promoting it.

I forgot to comment on this earlier.  Seriously, if you think these people (or any people) are that hypersensitive, you must think less of them that even I do.

Of course, it's possible that a literal handful of them could be set off, but an individual can be set off by literally anything. (I don't doubt that somethings are more likely than others to set any individual off, but there is still a possibility that anything can set a random individual off.)  So, the logical conclusion of your argument is that nobody can say anything.

Edit: That's probably more of a conclusion taken to its logical extreme, but I think my general point still more or less stands.

[136or142]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=236169.msg5069345#msg5069345

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=230580

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=230580

http://andrewgelman.com/2009/05/11/discussion_and/

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=236791.0

What am I supposed to be looking at with those?

This is from the last comment on the first link:

"
What's your source for these maps? This looks like absolutely fascinating stuff."

[136or142]

This is a thread about Michigan so the voting behavior of the Iron Range is relevant considering the economic similarities between the UP and Minnesota. No offense but it doesn't seem like you understand much about American politics so I am not going to respond. If you don't have the energy  to conduct basic research into my country or to look at county maps or to read about labor history or economic history, I have no real interest discussing this with you. Quoting Vox tells.me everything.I need.to know..

1.De Jure this thread is about Michigan, De Facto it's become about white working class voters throughout the United States.

2.So, in counties with a larger concentration of white working class voters, no other voter lives in those counties?  I don't think county maps (or county vote totals) are as good a breakdown as isolated  percentages are, as much as that leads into a separate definitional debate.

3.I think my responses show that I know just as much about your country as you do, and where I don't know something, unlike you've done here, I look it up.

I think you just don't like my responses because I disagree with you, because you haven't demonstrated that I was wrong on anything.

4.Vox looks like a straight up, mainstream news and opinion site to me.  I think you don't like that site because it also doesn't agree with some of your views.

I realize your parroting what I wrote earlier, but you'd be in a stronger position to do so if you provided evidence to back up your claims.

If you don't want to respond to me, that's no loss to me.

[136or142]

It was done by Adam Griffin from CNN exit polls in 2008. I posted another article on atlas showing the WV vote as example of how it was done.

I also added the others.

Is that from the initial CNN exit polls?  Or from any later polling? If it's from their initial poll it's no better and no worse than what I posted.

[136or142]

white vote from income are from exit polling, and they clearly show working class whites are more democratic than the average white, in the north way more.

My support for Castro, half and half, though that is not relevant to this discussion.

1.From the exit poll I sited, that was not the case by 2008.  They had been displaced by college educated whites.

And 2012 data: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/25/in-2012-white-voters-backed-romney-in-2016-theyre-splintered/?utm_term=.34c67e029a15

Check the graph there.

Same as in 2008, more college educated whites supported President Obama than non college educated whites.

In the Northern Midwest you may be correct that Obama had more support from non college whites than from college whites in 2012 and especially in 2008.

2.I was just curious.

[136or142]

Go to CNN exit polls, and differentiate whites by income, poorer whites are more democratic in 08', and by a much less margin in 12', and in 16' that was thrown out the window..

Who are you counting as 'poorer whites.' A lot of the $15,000 and below are obviously either long term unemployed or are college students.  I don't think either of those groups should be counted as part of the working class.  From that Vox article, (anything wrong with Vox?)  many of the white working class also don't believe they're the same as the unemployed, white or otherwise.

I have to go to bed now.

[136or142]

kj

A vast majority of those with poorer incomes are not colleges students, or are stuggling college students, that came from a challenged household income wise. 15,000, includes the working class, those who work part-time, in many cases this also includes family income, depending on how people respond. Poor r whites, working class whites are or we're more democratic than the average that is a fact, those trump voters, probably voted democrat down ballot.

I came back because I wanted to clarify about part time workers who earn under $15,000  a year.  I think that gets back to the definitional thing as most of them would count themselves as underemployed, so I don't know if they should be considered working class or not.

As to minimum wage workers in general in 2012 ($7.25 Federal minimum wage)

"Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers paid by the hour, about 21 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 3 percent of workers age 25 and over."

So, somewhere around 35-40% of all minimum wage earners likely are college students.

"Together, these 3.6 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 4.7 percent of all hourly paid workers."

and

"About 5 percent of White, Black, and Hispanic or Latino hourly paid workers earned the federal minimum wage or less. Among Asian workers paid at hourly rates, about 3 percent earned the minimum wage or less"

So, no significant difference between the number of white minimum wage earners and visible minority minimum wage earners.

Finally,

"The states with the highest proportions of hourly paid workers earning at or below the federal minimum wage were Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, and Idaho (all between 7 and 8 percent). The states with the lowest percentages of hourly paid workers earning at or below the federal minimum wage were Alaska, Oregon, California, Montana, and Washington (all under 2 percent). It should be noted that some states have minimum wage laws establishing standards that exceed the federal minimum wage"

So, the states with the highest number of working class whites who earn minimum wage were in the long standing Republican states of Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas and Idaho.  Of course, that doesn't prove those white working class minimum wage earners voted Republican.

https://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm

So, I agree that some of those who earned less than $15,000 should be included in the data on the white working class.

But if you look at the site with the graph I posted above showing the difference between college educated whites and non college educated whites I don't think it changes the fact that by 2008 more white college educated whites were voting Democratic than working class whites.

[136or142]

Education is not class, as I showed poor Poole of all education guys voted democratic. Poorer whites are working class whites, and they are more democratic, education doesn't matter that much, as I've shown you, working class whites are more democratic and have been until this election, that more middle class whites. If you don't realize this, you're ignorant.

I don't 'realize' this because that's not what the data that I've posted links to shows for either 2008 or 2012.

If you can't read the data accurately then clearly you're ignorant.

[136or142]

Education is not class, as I showed poor Poole of all education guys voted democratic. Poorer whites are working class whites, and they are more democratic, education doesn't matter that much, as I've shown you, working class whites are more democratic and have been until this election, that more middle class whites. If you don't realize this, you're ignorant.

I don't 'realize' this because that's not what the data that I've posted links to shows for either 2008 or 2012.

If you can't read the data accurately then clearly you're ignorant.

You're data shows education and not family income or income in itself. Poorer, working class whites were more democratic than the national average.  I've shown you everything, but that doesn't fit your agenda.

Your data counts students and the unemployed as part of the working class.  These are poor people who aren't part of the working class. So, neither of us have perfect data to work with.

I think you are clearly including them to get the results you want as much as you accuse me of doing the same.



I agree with what traininthedistance wrote in one of the links you provided:

"It's simultaneously too narrow and too broad.  A lot of the "poorest" white people, measured purely by income, are going to be college students (or similarly un/underemployed people) from comfortable backgrounds*. And the working class (measured by culture and/or financial stability) extends a fair amount beyond just the bottom third.  You could even argue that "working class" should cut off the bottom 20% or so, with those in full-on poverty being an entirely different class."

and

"According to this source there were over 12 million under-25 (i.e. traditional age) college students in 2013.  Presumably a majority of them were white, in excess of the percentage of white people overall... so almost certainly north of 10 percent of that 40-50 mil sample.  That's enough to introduce quite a bit of skew!

And even if it is "family" income I'm not sure how you measure that besides counting households, and students living away from home in a dorm don't get to count as part of the household anymore.  (Of course not all college students do that, so that would lower the percentage some.)"






And I quote from train, even though I'm sure that person would be pissed at some of the things I've posted here:

"For f**ks sake.  We should be better than this.

To be clear: I'm not sure that I particularly want to vote the same way as West Virginia.  My deeply held beliefs include the truth that systemic racism is a Real Problem and that even poor people can have bad views, that we have a moral obligation, for the sake of future generations, to prosecute the War on Coal to its fullest extent and leave that sh*t in the ground, that we should invest in our cities, promote cultural cosmopolitanism, etc etc etc.  Being poor doesn't excuse being racist, it doesn't excuse spitting on facts.  These are things I don't have any particular interest in compromising on, and as such I recognize that a Democratic Party I can comfortably be a part of is one that is going to lose in a lot of poor white areas.  Some principles need defending, you can't please everyone all of the time.

But, Jesus f**k, it's still not okay to sneer on people who are struggling like that.  It's not okay to say, "you deserve the sh*t you're in."  You still gotta be the bigger man and treat people with compassion, and do things to help those in distress, despite whatever objectively harmful views they hold.  (And, even if West Virginia is a lost cause for the foreseeable future, taking the high road does make a difference.  Like, in, say, Ohio.)  If you can't do that, then kindly STFU."


Anyway, I think you've won this.  I can't even remember the point I was trying to make originally.

[136or142]

1.Social security, medicare and medicaid were for the specific benefit of minorities? Maybe if seniors are counted as minorities.

The New Deal had a number of government jobs programs that specifically excluded minority hiring.

I assume you are trying to refer to the various Civil Rights Acts but none of them were social programs.

See, I was going to avoid being too much of a dick about this but then you got all snitty about other people's reading comprehension so...

...what I wrote was this:

Hardly a programme associated with giving benefits particularly to black people. Quite unlike basically the entire of the Great Society and large parts of the New Deal.

associated

I am, of course, referring especially (though not exclusively) to federal welfare and housing programmes, the best known of which was the Aid to Families with Dependent Children programme, which was a New Deal programme expanded as part of the Great Society to include minority groups, especially black people. It then became associated almost entirely with black people. A similar story applies to the part of the 1937 Housing Act that is usually called 'Section 8' as a shorthand.

Are we clear now?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And what does this have to do with the price of rice, exactly?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL

This is such a classic internet 'oh sh!t I am losing' cop out that it fools literally no one...

It's still your reading comprehension that is at issue.  I mentioned the welfare programs as part of the War on Poverty, but also pointed out that they were small in cost compared to medicare, medicaid and social security.  That those programs being actually associated with black people is a lying Republican talking point is another matter and it's pretty clear you're perfectly willing to spread Republican disinformation.

You still haven't shown any actual knowledge of the United States here and now I also question you reading comprehension and your integrity. You seem to be a complete sleaze.

I'm going to put you on ignore, so if you want to respond go ahead, but I don't care about a POS like you.

[136or142]

This is a thread about Michigan so the voting behavior of the Iron Range is relevant considering the economic similarities between the UP and Minnesota. No offense but it doesn't seem like you understand much about American politics so I am not going to respond. If you don't have the energy  to conduct basic research into my country or to look at county maps or to read about labor history or economic history, I have no real interest discussing this with you. Quoting Vox tells.me everything.I need.to know..

1.De Jure this thread is about Michigan, De Facto it's become about white working class voters throughout the United States.

2.So, in counties with a larger concentration of white working class voters, no other voter lives in those counties?  I don't think county maps (or county vote totals) are as good a breakdown as isolated  percentages are, as much as that leads into a separate definitional debate.

3.I think my responses show that I know just as much about your country as you do, and where I don't know something, unlike you've done here, I look it up.

I think you just don't like my responses because I disagree with you, because you haven't demonstrated that I was wrong on anything.

4.Vox looks like a straight up, mainstream news and opinion site to me.  I think you don't like that site because it also doesn't agree with some of your views.

I realize your parroting what I wrote earlier, but you'd be in a stronger position to do so if you provided evidence to back up your claims.

If you don't want to respond to me, that's no loss to me.

1. Then why would you ignore the Iron Range in Minnesota or discount it?

2. Man, this is where I seriously start to question how knowledgeable you are: you do realize that in communities that I am referring to that virtually no one has a college degree and that the median household income sits at 30k a year? The US is very segregated and it's very easy, if one has a solid understanding of demography, to isolate precincts or communities to see how white working class voters have voted over the years. The reliance on polls is totally misguided when we have a wealth/treasure trove of statistics of actual voting data and some of the best socio-economic data in the world...

3. No, they demonstrate that you are very ignorant of American history. The idea that people in rural communities in the Midwest care about race relations is really, really inane. There are no racial minorities in many of the places that swung towards Trump, they don't care about these issues, as demonstrated by the fact that Obama won the Dem primary in many of these places (!!) etc. Maybe people in these communities are racist but their racism is not politically salient nor has it ever been salient.

4. Vox is part of the problem and its editors have demonstrated that they don't understand American politics. They're fine on policy issues but you can throw their electoral analysis into the garbage bin where it belongs.

1.I didn't ignore the Iron Range, I said that you are cherry picking it.  What about the Upper Peninsula?

2.I totally agree with you, but you mentioned county maps and county results.  If you have precinct or city/town results that dispute what I wrote, I would certainly appreciate them being posted.  Contrary to what you may think, I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm wrong.  I would be pleased to be proven wrong.

3.I think that is incredibly naive.  The idea that just because they don't live with minorities means the don't care about 'race relations' is ridiculous because it's not as if they can't resent the idea that their tax dollars are going to support minorities they regard as welfare bums.

It's possible that Barack Obama won the Primaries in 2008 in many of these places, though that's not my recollection except for the caucus states.  However,  if the turnout in these places was extremely low, I don't think that proves anything one way or the other.

4.I don't want to continue an insult match with you (that's pretty much all my fault) so, that's fine.

[136or142]

The thing is a vast majority of poorer whites aren't students, and those who earn $15, 000, are part-timed working class, more than anything else, and to measure income with class, is much better than education, as we can see that white poorer people, of every graduate group vote democratic roughly in equivalent amounts.The working class would probably include the bottom 40%, and these people are, now were vastly more democratic, than those that are richer, that is my point. We could see that in WV, and in KY, not anymore, and before this election, we could see this in the north (bar some western states), but not so much this election.

Being poor does not excuse being racist that is correct, but in many cases the concerns of the working class, are shafted as they are called racist. All I am saying, is that poorer-whites are no more racist than middle-class whites, they are even less racist than middle class whites, many of which of middle class ethnic whites left to vote for Regan, while working class whites did not at such a level, bar popular perception.

That was all my point.

I was wondering if you made what I'm pretty sure is a mistake on your part.  Those graphs just said 'income of $15,000 a year' they did not say 'earned income.'  I think most of those who have income of less than $15,000 a year are those on welfare who have very little or no earned income.  It is possible in some states in 2012 to have had a full time minimum wage job and earned less than $15,000 a year (and it's still possible now) but I listed some of those states and they tend to be heavily Republican.  Of course, that doesn't mean those full time minimum wage earners voted Republican.

Academic class models:  
Underclass: Those with limited or no participation in the labor force. Reliant on government transfers. Some high school education. (12% of population)
(That's from Dennis Gilbert's class models, two others are presented there)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

So, I guess the debate here is do the underclass in general identify themselves as part of the working class, or do they identify themselves in general solely in their own class and feel they have little to nothing in common with the working class.

Or, even, as I might posit, even (again, in general) dislike the working class who they may believe resents them for receiving welfare.

It's likely that this class votes the least, but I'm sure they still skew the numbers you've presented as working class (or white working class) by a fair bit.

If I wrote that I thought that these people were more racist than other whites, I don't believe that.  What I wrote is that these people vote Republican (and not just for Trump) because collectively and in fairly large numbers in many places they don't mind as much being poor as long as they know that somebody is worse off than they are.  And, they are even willing to lose programs that benefit themselves so that these other people also lose those benefits.

What they collectively and in many places in large numbers want most I suggest is to have to receive some benefits while those on welfare are cut off entirely.

However, here is one article that is much more nuanced, though possibly a bit dated:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/29/working-class-voters-america-republican
Working class voters: why America's poor are willing to vote Republican

[136or142]

If Adam is an example of the 'enlightened' and 'educated' then this country is in big league trouble.

Lies, I'm Canadian.  It's Canada that is in bigly trouble.

Please don't make this mistake again in the future.