@JaredSmith Trying to move the goal post I see.

In what sense? Did you think I was arguing that e.g. New York City baristas were Trumpists?

Or did I misunderstand what you meant?

@Shadur yeah, all of those diverse characters (good thing, FTR) have something else in common: they're almost exclusively upper middle class urbanites. Maybe I'm wrong and they'd hate a show about a gay Mexican middle school teacher in Iowa, but I'd want to see the numbers. And if you want to point out that they aren't upper middle class, I'd challenge the assertion that just because they might be working menial jobs doesn't make them lower class, they ooze the signifiers of that strata.

@JaredSmith You're switching criteria from working-class to small-town.

Also, the elephant in the room is that factory jobs are disappearing in the US, and off the face of the world in general.

Automation and whatnot mean factories just don't employ as many people as they used to.

@CrackpotCrocodile I don't think I'm switching at all. I do wonder since you're saying that if we're using the same definition of working class. As for the factory job thing, I hear a lot about that but it seems like offshoring is still the likely culprit. Machines and software are expensive, foreign labor costs are cheap.

@JaredSmith Only for certain things. We still have plenty of factories in the US, but they are mostly automated.

Even if you prevented foreign labor, the alternative companies would choose would be more automation.

Unless factory workers were willing to accept foreign worker level pay.

@CrackpotCrocodile which, as you are correct to point out, has it's own host of problems. But let me try a different tack. I'm making a particular case in my answer and this chat. So far I have had lots of people poke holes in various facets of my argument. And for here, on SE, that's fine. We approach truth asymptotically by ping-ponging between falsehoods. But I feel like "your argument isn't totally water-tight" is being followed up with "therefor we can totally dismiss your concerns...

...and those of the people you're talking about". That's dangerous. This isn't just an academic exercise in rhetoric: there are real consequences.

@JaredSmith If you argument is that of "feeling", rather than fact, you should present it as such.

Ideally by pointing out how these feeling are not exactly grounded in reality.

But I really don't know what sitcoms have to do with Republican politics anyway. Seem more like a rant coming out out of nowhere, tacked onto the answer.

This isn't about my feelings. I'm pointing out a logical fallacy: if I make a bad argument that doesn't mean the thing I am arguing for isn't true. As for the sitcom thing, it is difficult to capture the feeling of being excluded from the culture. For example, many white people do not understand why African Americans feel excluded from the culture. Then you sit down and patiently explain to them that almost all depictions of positive figures happen to be white,

that almost every person celebrated in American culture is white (most notably at this time of year, Santa Claus). And they still don't get it.

Heck, even Jesus is portrayed as white, because reasons.

But as I said, when you're white, all of that is invisible. You have to be taught, you have to pay attention. I'm having difficulty, because I'm trying to describe the abscence of something rather than the presence. But the thing that's missing is positive portrayls of a certain large demographic of Americans in the media (all media, not just news media)

So you admit it's a bad argument, but you're still going with it?

Difficult one, and maybe I'm failing at making it? Doesn't make it wrong, although I'm obviously adjusting my confidence in it downwards. Still think you're missing the point, but I also keep grasping for a better way to convey it, so IDK.

Don't mistake epistemic humility of "I may be wrong or communicating poorly" for "I know I'm wrong but I don't care about veracity"

If you can't make the argument to yourself, why are you convinced?

You have explicit formal arguments for every single thing you believe? Ones that are simple and can be easily communicated to any other person regardless of inferential distance?

The rest shouldn't really matter to other people.

You never talk to other people about something until you've both proved beyond a shadow of a doubt in your own mind and have done the hard work of figuring out how to explain it simply and convincingly to people who are ideologically inclined to disagree with you?

Sure I'll talk to other people about things. I wouldn't try to convince them of a conclusion unless I was certain. Huge difference.

But how do you get feedback (of the sort you're providing me right now) if you never have those conversations? This is all public record, it's not like I'm trying to silence you so no one can see that there's any possibility that I may be wrong. This is (AFAIK) a discussion that we're having on this issue in good faith.

If you never sharpen your arguments against the grit of opposition, how do you know they're right?

By having an argument I can at-least make to myself.

Then you explain to me why Trump is popular without resorting to assuming that literally half the country are inhuman racist monsters, who somehow didn't matter in the electoral calculus when we elected a liberal African American President. Twice. My solid red home state, which went IIRC 80% for Trump, went to Obama. Twice. Please explain.

and it's cool if you can't, but don't sneer at me for trying, no matter how unconvincingly to you, because that' phenonemon I'm asking about is weird on the surface.

@JaredSmith I dunno what state, but I imagine black voter turnout was better.

A large percentage of the the US doesn't normally vote, so something that changes who turns out can have a large impact.

Also, the economy wasn't doing well the first time with the GOP at the helm.

That seems like a potentially plausible explanation (I'm not finding a lot of data except about total turnouts yet). Except that my state is only ~9% black, and we generally have a ~60% turnout in Presidential elections, so maybe not.

Alright, scintillating as this is, I'm gonna go play with my kids. I'll respond tomorrow if you post anything else. Gnight and such.

Also, the right wing has been attacking Hillary Clinton for over 20 years. Loads of people despise her, and many don't even know why.

Winning an ellection doesn't necessarily make someone popular.