In today’s Economist/YouGov poll, a majority or plurality of the following groups of US adults approve of Donald Trump’s indictment for his handling of classified materials and obstruction of justice. #TrumpIndictment
Men
Women
Whites
Blacks
Hispanics
People aged 18-29
People aged 30-44
People aged 45-64
People earning < $50k
People earning $50k-$100k
People earning > $100k
Approve of Trump’s indictment (continued):
Registered voters
2020 Biden voters
Democrats
Independents
Liberals
Moderates
People living in urban areas
People living in suburbs
Here are the only groups in the survey who disapprove of Donald Trump’s indictment:
People aged 65+
2020 Trump voters
Republicans
Conservatives
People living in rural areas
I’m not sure why so many Republican politicians think/thought it was smart to triple down on defending Trump on this. But, in addition to the need for the GOP to develop a platform, policies and ideas, they might want to start doing drug testing.
Because this makes no sense.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In 2016, black turnout fell to its lowest level since the 2000 election.
And Trump narrowly won.
In 2004, black turnout was 60.30%.
In 2008, black turnout was 65.20%.
In 2012, black turnout was 66.40%.
In 2016, black turnout was 59.30%.
In 2020, black turnout rose back to 62.70%.
You all know I like to try to use logic to understand what makes things different from each other. And I like to lay out things visually so I can understand them better.
And so I put together a chart which shows the differences between what Trump did versus what others did.
Sandy Berger, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Joe Biden and David Petraeus were all high-level officials who had been reported to have been found to have mishandled sensitive information.
Berger, Trump and Petraeus were charged. Clinton and Biden (so far) not. What's different?
Berger, Clinton, Trump, Biden and Patraeus all had documents they shouldn't have. And so did Mike Pence, who I forgot to add to the chart.
Doesn't seem like the political party was the differentiating factor. Berger and Petraeus were both prosecuted (and pled guilty).
Notice how the so-called conservative media has a constantly evolving set of enemies? Each of which is a supposed imminent existential danger to society. And all of which quietly go away and are replaced by a new, even scarier boogeyman.
A decade ago it was the supposed threat of Sharia Law somehow taking over America.
Yeah, that was going to really happen.
And just as suddenly as that boogeyman took center stage, it suddenly just went away.
When have you last heard it mentioned?
I believe that next up was Black Lives Matter. Then Antifa. Then the Mexicans. Then the Muslims again. Then George Soros, who is supposedly omnipresent and omnipotent and is, according to their narratives, somehow responsible for all of the other boogeymen.
Over time, politicians use different groups of human beings to unwillingly play the role of the existentially scary boogeyman. The latest threat to civilization which strangely always seems to become an urgent focus just in time for an election.
Sometimes the boogeyman is black people, especially angry, “woke” ones. Sometimes it’s immigrants. Sometimes it’s Muslims. And now it’s the LGBT folks.
It’s the same thing over and over again. A suddenly urgent threat you must fight by voting, donating or clicking my podcast!
I don’t understand everything everybody does. Everything everybody does doesn’t align with my personal convictions.
But I’m tired of seeing people being used as the latest scary prop who are only the topic of debate right now because they can be used to manipulate opinion.