1. I understand the desire to see Trump as somehow the expression of what white Americans as a group want, but there are a couple things that call that into question.
2. First, Trump is slightly less popular with white voters, and slightly more popular with nonwhite voters, than most GOP candidates of the last 50 years. In fact, the demographics of his support, in racial terms, look pretty similar to the typical GOP presidential candidate.
3. 2nd, Trump’s popularity with white voters, like the popularity of other GOP candidates but more so, was driven largely by his popularity with white evangelicals.
4. Trump lost white non-evangelicals (who are around 2/3 of white voters) by a sizeable margin to Hillary in 2016, and he lost them to Biden by even more.
5. In other words, a majority of white Americans who aren’t evangelical Christians voted against Trump.
6. I’m a believer in the white backlash explanation for the rise of the modern GOP, but it’s complicated by the fact that not long after the Dems became seen as the party of civil rights, they also became seen as the party of reproductive rights.
7. These two things often reinforced each other, because white evangelicalism has often had a racist dimension (Bob Jones being only the most extreme example).
8. But the simple point is that if you look at white Americans who aren’t fundamentalist Christians, most of them don’t actually support Donald Trump.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with James Surowiecki

James Surowiecki Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JamesSurowiecki

22 Nov
Incredible - Giuliani is still citing Russell Ramsland’s error-riddled and long-since-debunked affidavit, which mistook Minnesota for Michigan, as “evidence” of fraud.

I have no idea if Rudy is clueless or lying, but it doesn’t matter: nothing he says should be taken seriously.
You can find Ramsland's affidavit here - the Michigan numbers that he claimed were "impossible" (but were actually Minnesota numbers) are on pp. 3 and 6. You'll notice that he builds an elaborate conspiracy theory out of the totally false results on p. 3.
It's worth looking at this in some detail because it shows how hamfisted, careless, and indifferent to reality the "election fraud" camp is. The precincts/townships that Ramsland said were in "Wayne County," for instance, are all in Becker County, Minnesota.
Read 8 tweets
22 Nov
The middle ground is that Sidney Powell is a complete fool, who has allowed her ideological biases to destroy her ability to think critically about the facts.
As a reminder, in that lunatic press conference on Thursday, Sidney Powell and Giuliani cited the error-laden affidavit by Russell Ramsland as evidence that some precincts in Michigan had more votes than voters.
Ramsland reached that conclusion by confusing Michigan with Minnesota, and then misunderstanding what the "estimated voters" column in the Minnesota Secretary of State's data meant. Yet Powell never even bothered to check Ramsland's work to see if it was true (or even plausible).
Read 9 tweets
21 Nov
1. There are many weird things about the affidavit from Sidney Powell’s “very strong witness,” including the fact that the witness describes himself as being of “sound mine,” and that much of the affidavit is mysteriously redacted, despite being a freely given statement.
2. The big problem with the affidavit, from Trump’s perspective, is that the person who gave it has zero personal knowledge of anything that happened in the 2020 election. Yet a big chunk of the “affidavit” is devoted to his conspiratorial musings on what he thinks happened.
3. What’s especially frustrating about this is that in his comments on the election, he repeats - under oath - the same falsehoods that have become common currency among Trumpists.
Read 6 tweets
19 Nov
1. I don't want to take you too far down the Sidney Powell rabbit hole, but there are two points worth making about her lunatic theory that the 2020 election was rigged using voting software originally created at Hugo Chavez's behest to rig elections to keep his party in power.
2. First, in 2015, Venezuela held a national parliamentary election, in which the ruling United Socialist Party (Chavez's creation) lost control of parliament, with the party created to oppose Chavez and his successor winning 112 seats and earning a supermajority.
3. If the voting software made it so easy to rig elections, why would the PSUV ever have allowed itself to be beaten so badly and allow its opponents to take over the Venezuelan parliament?
Read 9 tweets
18 Nov
1. This is a completely ridiculous take. The study was too underpowered to demonstrate anything either way, since it only involved 6000 people at a time when the infection rate in Denmark was incredibly low, and it relied on self-reported behavior.
2. Of the 6000 ppl in the study, only 4860 completed it. In the half that wore masks, 42 people got the coronavirus. In the half that didn't, 53 got it. So there was a difference - it just wasn't statistically significant.
3. But that's not surprising - the infection rate in Denmark at the time of the study was so low that the vast majority of people had no chance of contracting the virus. As a result, it was very unlikely that you'd be able to demonstrate a strong effect from mask-wearing.
Read 9 tweets
18 Nov
Those sky-high numbers you see for South Dakota's "positive test rate" are inflated. The 58% number is the number of new cases/number of new people being tested. The tests of anyone who's been tested before aren't included in the denominator to calculate the positive-test rate.
Other states, like NY and CT, don't track new individuals tested - they only track the total number of tests. So South Dakota's 58% positive-test rate is not the same as New York's 3.4% positive-test rate.
The percentage of all new tests in South Dakota that are positive is 22%, which is still extraordinarily high (but obviously a lot lower than 58%). That's the number that's comparable to NY's 3.4%.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!