The observations of "What's the Matter with Kansas?" remain fundamental. The only way of penetrating the "social" perspectives of those voters is to somehow make it clear to them (not to us) that their fundamental economic interests are at stake and that they are being conned. It's a very tough sell because their attitudes about those "social" issues are very strong.
They are what they are. The target voters would be ones who have either not been voting, or who voted Republican, because they feel/felt betrayed by Democrats, which I think we can agree is an understandable stance. It really is a well-reasoned, well-researched and unblinkered look at the issue.
It may have overlooked the possibility of multiple motivations. After the completion of the Trump administration, it may be an understandable stance but an exceedingly foolish one. (IMHO, of course.)
A guess based on my limited contacts with some of the kinds of people we're talking about. If the nature of their research was polling, I would question its validity.
The observations of "What's the Matter with Kansas?" remain fundamental. The only way of penetrating the "social" perspectives of those voters is to somehow make it clear to them (not to us) that their fundamental economic interests are at stake and that they are being conned. It's a very tough sell because their attitudes about those "social" issues are very strong.
The Jacobin guy isn't really talking about people who voted or considered voting for Trump out of racial or social animus.
Well, if not, he ought to be thinking about them because they are the impediment to victory there.
They are what they are. The target voters would be ones who have either not been voting, or who voted Republican, because they feel/felt betrayed by Democrats, which I think we can agree is an understandable stance. It really is a well-reasoned, well-researched and unblinkered look at the issue.
It may have overlooked the possibility of multiple motivations. After the completion of the Trump administration, it may be an understandable stance but an exceedingly foolish one. (IMHO, of course.)
Why would you think they overlooked that?
A guess based on my limited contacts with some of the kinds of people we're talking about. If the nature of their research was polling, I would question its validity.