Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder
I'm back to needing you to demonstrate you understand math. Median Trump voter income was $72k. Median US income was $50k. And yet you said that quoted language above.
|
If the median Trump voter is at the national average, we can safely assume that Trump voters are not affluent. What the 50K national median tells you is that an awful lot of US citizens generally are impoverished.
That a shitload of this country earns a subsistence living does not undo the point that a typical Trump voter is likely struggling to keep up with cost of the American Dream. Those below him have no hope of achieving it. He is, OTOH, just deluding himself, and he's angry that he cannot achieve it. Instead of punching up, however, he is stupidly targeting those below him as the cause of his insecurity.
But, in fairness, he can't punch upward. Because the rich aren't the cause of his stagnancy either. It's just a conflation of economic conditions, policy decisions, and their own decisions, that are causing these Trumpkins to become redundant or obsolete.
And he can't rely on the Democratic Party to help him. That party cannot undo global economic conditions or automation. All it can offer him is more robust safety nets -- more transfers to him. And I'm not sure the Trump voter wants that. The angry Trump voter I see, and this is anecdotal, but keep in mind, I run into a fair number of them in this backwash state of mine, wants opportunity. He wants to be able to provide and feel like he's part of the economy.
So when faced with no hope of policy that will aid him, I think he decides to vote for Trump. And the calculation is simple: "This guy will either create some magic and change things in a way that will help me, or he'll just burn it all down."
I'm no anthropologist, but if people are given the option of either accepting defeat or blowing up the game, they pretty predictably pick the latter.
