(03-29-2016 02:08 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  How about "mad as hell and ain't gonna take it" voters?

(03-29-2016 02:18 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Insulting voters has panned out so well this far!

(03-29-2016 10:46 AM)bullet Wrote:  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/03/29/does_social_connectedness_explain_trumps_appeal_130125.html

Interesting theory-that Trump voters are those with low social-connectedness and that he does poorly where there among groups with higher social-connectedness.

How can one make sense of the electoral divisions in this year's Republican primaries and caucuses? The contours of Donald Trump's support and opposition don't fall on traditional lines.

There's not a regional division, for example. Trump's best states have been Massachusetts, Mississippi and Arizona.





We're not seeing the divide between evangelical Christians and others apparent in the 2008 race between Mike Huckabee and John McCain.

We're not seeing the suburbs/countryside division of 2012, when in crucial primaries Mitt Romney carried million-plus metro areas and Rick Santorum carried almost all other counties. Trump carried metro Detroit and Chicago -- Romney country last time -- but lost to Ted Cruz in Raleigh-Durham and Kansas City.

So what factor distinguishes Trump and non-Trump voters? My answer is social connectedness or, to use Robert Putnam's term in "Bowling Alone," social capital. Socially connected people have strong family ties and wide circles of friends, are active in churches and voluntary organizations and work steadily.
....

(03-29-2016 02:54 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 10:46 AM)bullet Wrote:  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/03/29/does_social_connectedness_explain_trumps_appeal_130125.html

Interesting theory-that Trump voters are those with low social-connectedness and that he does poorly where there among groups with higher social-connectedness.

How can one make sense of the electoral divisions in this year's Republican primaries and caucuses? The contours of Donald Trump's support and opposition don't fall on traditional lines.

There's not a regional division, for example. Trump's best states have been Massachusetts, Mississippi and Arizona.





We're not seeing the divide between evangelical Christians and others apparent in the 2008 race between Mike Huckabee and John McCain.

We're not seeing the suburbs/countryside division of 2012, when in crucial primaries Mitt Romney carried million-plus metro areas and Rick Santorum carried almost all other counties. Trump carried metro Detroit and Chicago -- Romney country last time -- but lost to Ted Cruz in Raleigh-Durham and Kansas City.

So what factor distinguishes Trump and non-Trump voters? My answer is social connectedness or, to use Robert Putnam's term in "Bowling Alone," social capital. Socially connected people have strong family ties and wide circles of friends, are active in churches and voluntary organizations and work steadily.
....

Because loners have time to read the bullschit and conspiracy theories that his propaganda arm advances. To ba fair I do know socially connected people that follow him as well.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

(03-29-2016 02:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 02:18 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Insulting voters has panned out so well this far!

Its categorizing. I just simplified his term.

There's got to be something different about these people that isn't explained by the normal "groups" of Republicans. These people are willing to accept a sniveling bully and world class ******* as president. That's pretty extreme and very different from the past.

(03-29-2016 03:14 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 02:54 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 10:46 AM)bullet Wrote:  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/03/29/does_social_connectedness_explain_trumps_appeal_130125.html

Interesting theory-that Trump voters are those with low social-connectedness and that he does poorly where there among groups with higher social-connectedness.

How can one make sense of the electoral divisions in this year's Republican primaries and caucuses? The contours of Donald Trump's support and opposition don't fall on traditional lines.

There's not a regional division, for example. Trump's best states have been Massachusetts, Mississippi and Arizona.





We're not seeing the divide between evangelical Christians and others apparent in the 2008 race between Mike Huckabee and John McCain.

We're not seeing the suburbs/countryside division of 2012, when in crucial primaries Mitt Romney carried million-plus metro areas and Rick Santorum carried almost all other counties. Trump carried metro Detroit and Chicago -- Romney country last time -- but lost to Ted Cruz in Raleigh-Durham and Kansas City.

So what factor distinguishes Trump and non-Trump voters? My answer is social connectedness or, to use Robert Putnam's term in "Bowling Alone," social capital. Socially connected people have strong family ties and wide circles of friends, are active in churches and voluntary organizations and work steadily.
....

Because loners have time to read the bullschit and conspiracy theories that his propaganda arm advances. To ba fair I do know socially connected people that follow him as well.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Barone never defined what that is. Just vague thoughts regarding people of German and Dutch heritage being more social.

(03-29-2016 04:07 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 02:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 02:18 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Insulting voters has panned out so well this far!

Its categorizing. I just simplified his term.

There's got to be something different about these people that isn't explained by the normal "groups" of Republicans. These people are willing to accept a sniveling bully and world class ******* as president. That's pretty extreme and very different from the past.

They probably watch too much "reality" TV. For them, Trump seems normal.

(03-29-2016 01:17 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  That's a lot of loners.

(03-29-2016 02:28 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Barone is making way too many assumptions.