So after wading through as much of that as I could take...
Posted on: November 22, 2017 at 21:12:34 CT
MUTGR MU
Posts:
68733
Member For:
24.75 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
2
it appears to me that after a decades long evolution of becoming the anti-white party, and dividing the country by race against whites, democrats and leftists are surprised and upset that white Americans would in blocks larger than anticipated vote for a white candidate who espoused affinity for traditional values, border security, American jobs, putting America first, etc.
"If you look at white voters alone, a different picture emerges. Trump defeated Clinton among white voters in every income category, winning by a margin of 57 to 34 among whites making less than $30,000; 56 to 37 among those making less than $50,000; 61 to 33 for those making $50,000 to $100,000; 56 to 39 among those making $100,000 to $200,000; 50 to 45 among those making $200,000 to $250,000; and 48 to 43 among those making more than $250,000. In other words, Trump won white voters at every level of class and income. He won workers, he won managers, he won owners, he won robber barons. This is not a working-class coalition; it is a nationalist one."
"Overall, poor and working-class Americans did not support Trump; it was white Americans on all levels of the income spectrum who secured his victory. Clinton was only competitive with Trump among white people making more than $100,000, but the fact that their shares of the vote was nearly identical drives the point home: Economic suffering alone does not explain the rise of Trump."
"Overall, poor and working-class Americans did not support Trump; it was white Americans on all levels of the income spectrum who secured his victory. Clinton was only competitive with Trump among white people making more than $100,000, but the fact that their shares of the vote was nearly identical drives the point home: Economic suffering alone does not explain the rise of Trump."
Edited by MUTGR at 21:20:42 on 11/22/17