Tucker Carlson in Hungary

[mumblethrax]

I think I have with the Pew Research numbers.

You haven't. You've completely talked around the only relevant question--did boomers, in fact, vote for Trump? They did.

What have you provided showing otherwise?

Exit poll numbers.

BOOMERS ARE NOT THE SAME GENERATION AS THE SILENT GENERATION.

I've mentioned at least twice that the 45-64 demographic also voted for Trump in both 2016 and 2020. No part of the silent generation is in that demographic. And "lumping boomers with the silent generation" is like saying we add tea to sugar. Boomers outnumber the silent generation by more than 3:1.

Really? I've quoted both you and ST saying exactly that. And so does the article.

You didn't. "Boomers voted for Trump" is distinct from the claim that boomers alone are to blame for Trump. Boomers did vote for Trump. This is something you should accept. You can then contest the relevance.

Nope. My generation's parents are mostly the Silent Generation. Their parents were the Greatest Generation. My parents were born in 1928... the first year of the Silent Generation. And my dad was too young to serve in WWII by one year.

You're having trouble with the work the word 'mostly' is doing there. And no, the silent generation's parents were not the greatest generation (again, mostly, your personal family history notwithstanding).

We get lumped in out of convenience and the assumption we vote the same which is not true as I've shown.

No, you get lumped in because demographers are more concerned with demographic categories than generations, which are mostly ******** media inventions.

Does Gen X get lumped in with Millenials? Does Gen Z get lumped in with Millenials when looking at voting records? NO. They get their own data. Just look at the articles.

Yes, all the time. For example, the 45-64 demographic includes both boomers and gen x. The 30-44 includes gen x and millenniums. But people will write headlines about 'gen x' and 'millennials' based on that data. Authors are lazy with this stuff.

Boomers, not the SG, are mostly registered Democrats: 48% Democrats, 46% Republicans.

Again, this is irrelevant since we're talking about who voted for Trump, not party registration/affiliation.

 

[Stacyhs]

You haven't. You've completely talked around the only relevant question--did boomers, in fact, vote for Trump? They did.

Then provide numbers for ONLY Boomers, not coupled with Gen X or SC, that voted for Trump. You haven't done that. Until you do, I'll go with the only research I can find that separates them.

Exit poll numbers.

Provide those numbers showing ONLY BOOMERS.

I've mentioned at least twice that the 45-64 demographic also voted for Trump in both 2016 and 2020. No part of the silent generation is in that demographic.

Boomers aged 57-75 not 45 to 56. So you've included 12 years of people who are not Boomers and 8 years of Boomers....so 2/3rds of them are not Boomers.

And "lumping boomers with the silent generation" is like saying we add tea to sugar. Boomers outnumber the silent generation by more than 3:1.

No, your analogy doesn't work because tea and sugar blend together while Boomers and the SC are distinct groups. And the fact is that the majority of Boomers are Democrats. You have yet to show me the voting data for Boomers vs. the SG.

You didn't. "Boomers voted for Trump" is distinct from the claim that boomers alone are to blame for Trump. Boomers did vote for Trump. This is something you should accept. You can then contest the relevance.

I never said that you or the others said "Boomers are ALONE to blame for Trump". I said "That it's Boomers who mainly supported and voted for Trump is simply not true." Do you understand the difference between "alone" and "mainly"?

Suburban Turkey: "boomers are the heart and soul of this thing." That's blaming the Boomers. No one else.

You: "Because Boomers voted for Trump--party identification, congressional votes, and job approval aren't directly relevant to that question."
You only mention the Boomers. No one else.

Give me a break.

You're having trouble with the work the word 'mostly' is doing there. And no, the silent generation's parents were not the greatest generation (again, mostly, your personal family history notwithstanding).

And you're having trouble with the words "alone" and "mainly".

Sorry, but the Silent Generation's parents were the Greatest Generation:

The Greatest Generation refers to those Americans who were born in the 1900s through the 1920s. The Greatest Generation members all lived through the Great Depression and many of them fought in World War II.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/the_greatest_generation.asp
Silent Gen:An often-used range, however, is 1928–1945.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=silen...-23&sk=&cvid=0ABB468DFBA64B05A66DB128945217AA

No, you get lumped in because demographers are more concerned with demographic categories than generations, which are mostly ******** media inventions.

LOL! Generations are a media invention? You are getting desperate.

Yes, all the time. For example, the 45-64 demographic includes both boomers and gen x. The 30-44 includes gen x and millenniums. But people will write headlines about 'gen x' and 'millennials' based on that data. Authors are lazy with this stuff.


Again, this is irrelevant since we're talking about who voted for Trump, not party registration/affiliation.

Oh, give me a break! Party affiliation is an excellent indicator of who people vote for.
Try googling Silent Generation voting data and see what you come up with. Pew research only. Then try googling the others. You'll get all kinds of data.

I'll be waiting for those voting numbers of those born only between 1946 and 1964. Good luck.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Carlson should stay in Hungary forever.

Can that be organised? He could be Fox's Man in Budapest.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Can that be organised? He could be Fox's Man in Budapest.

He could be the pest in Budapest.

 

[Resume]

He could be the pest in Budapest.

Best pest in Budapest?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

As for boomers getting lumped in with the silent generation--that's because age is a better predictor of electoral support than generation. The 45-64 group in both 2016 and 2020 also voted for Trump (with remarkable similarity to the older cohort, and consistency between 2016 and 2020).

Yes. Every generation gets more conservative as they get older. Just as young people are rebellious and desperate for change, so old people are staid and fearful of it. But does it really have that much effect?

"Boomers voted for Trump" is distinct from the claim that boomers alone are to blame for Trump. Boomers did vote for Trump. This is something you should accept. You can then contest the relevance.

Voters of all ages voted for Trump. Many boomers did not vote for Trump.

Are Boomers 'alone' responsible for Trump? Of course not. Are they even 'mostly' to blame? No again. But were they at least 'a large factor'? Not even that. Let's look at the numbers:-

Firstly, Trump received ~3 million less votes than Clinton - so if anything was 'responsible' for Trump it was our non-democratic electoral process that allows the loser to get 34% more electoral votes than the winner (of the popular vote).

Secondly, of voters aged 50-64 (29% of the electorate), 51% voted for Trump vs 45% for Clinton. That means only 6% of them (1.7% of the electorate) were 'responsible' by virtue of their age group. But if we look at other criteria there were much larger differences. Among non-college grad whites (44% of the electorate) 64% voted for Trump vs only 28% for Clinton. But among non-college grad non-whites (19% of the electorate), a mere 18% voted for Trump vs 77% for Clinton. And of non-whites overall, only 6% of Blacks and 28% of Hispanics voted for trump. Clearly there is a lot more going on here than age or generation.

Yes, it's true that people get more conservative as they get older, so the conservative candidate tends to get more of the aged vote simply because they are conservative. That is almost always the case in any electorate. But in this case other factors had more effect. One of the largest is that most people don't change parties unless they have a 'good' reason to.

Somehow Trump managed to appeal to lower class whites, but not to lower class non-whites. Age is clearly not a big factor here. Older non-whites are not much less conservative than whites, but they know what white conservatism has done to for them, and Trump couldn't fool them into thinking he was any different. IOW, while age might make people more conservative, that doesn't mean they change parties because it. Part of being conservative is resisting change in any direction.

Trump got some Boomers votes because he promised to 'Make America Great Again' but most would have voted for him anyway due to the 'R' next to his name. OTOH many didn't vote for him who 'should' have based on their age. What made the difference was other groups who found his message attractive.

So saying 'Boomers voted for Trump' is misleading. Of those that did, most vote for whoever the conservative candidate is regardless, because that's what they always do. Similarly, almost as many (as a proportion of the electorate) always vote for the liberal candidate, whoever that might be. Only a small proportion are 'swing' voters, and they didn't have as much effect as other groups in 2016.

 

[mumblethrax]

Provide those numbers showing ONLY BOOMERS.

That's not especially necessary. As your Pew data show, the trend is that the older you are, the more likely you are to identify with the GOP. It's therefore not plausible that Gen X is weighting the 45-64 demographic towards Trump in either 2016 or 2020, since they're more skewed towards the Democrats than boomers are, and it's especially implausible given their lower numbers.

Here's a different exit poll that captures the 50-64 demographics for 2016, which voted for Trump by a significant margin (52-44). Thirteen out of fifteen of those years are boomers. Almost identical to the 65+ demo (52-45).

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

Boomers aged 57-75 not 45 to 56. So you've included 12 years of people who are not Boomers and 8 years of Boomers....so 2/3rds of them are not Boomers.

Poor reasoning. Boomers in 2016 were 52-70--that's 13 out of the 20 years--and boomers are, by definition, those born during the period of relatively high birth rates-- there are therefore more of them then there are the surrounding generations, and they haven't yet suffered enough attrition for that to change.

No, your analogy doesn't work because tea and sugar blend together while Boomers and the SC are distinct groups. And the fact is that the majority of Boomers are Democrats. You have yet to show me the voting data for Boomers vs. the SG.

They aren't distinct groups. These are arbitrary divisions.

"The majority of boomers are Democrats" isn't useful for answering the question "Did boomers vote for Trump?" if Democrats are capable of voting for Trump, even if only in relatively small numbers, and of course they are.

I never said that you or the others said "Boomers are ALONE to blame for Trump". I said "That it's Boomers who mainly supported and voted for Trump is simply not true." Do you understand the difference between "alone" and "mainly"?

Yes. "Boomers voted for Trump" is also a different claim from "It was mainly boomers supported and voted for Trump." I never said the latter.

This is all kind of an irrelevant aside, because your claim was that it's stupid and unfair to blame boomers for supporting Trump when it's the silent generation that voted for Trump, completely ignoring the fact that boomers also voted for Trump. You're just denying an unpleasant reality because it reflects negatively on an identity you've incorporated into your own.

Sorry, but the Silent Generation's parents were the Greatest Generation:

No, it was mostly people older than Greatest Generation.

From your link:

"The Greatest Generation members also tend to be the parents of the Baby Boomer generation."

There generations are too short to correspond to reproductive generations, and that's especially true as technological and social developments have allowed parents to defer birth into later years.

LOL! Generations are a media invention? You are getting desperate.

No, I'm saying something obviously true--there is no operational definition for 'generation' in the sense we're using it, no way of determining robust boundaries. For baby boomers the boundaries emerge from birth rate data (and the litany of Life magazine articles about the baby boom is probably why the media likes to write about generations--it proved easy to construct generational identity and move ink/pixels that way). But we don't especially look to birth rate for prior or subsequent generations. Everyone else is just squidgy clusters of formative events and values, where we feel compelled to declare a new generation every fifteen years or so. There's nothing especially real about generations beyond that.

Oh, give me a break! Party affiliation is an excellent indicator of who people vote for.

Of course it is. It's also not an infallible predictor of who people vote for. Sometimes Democrats vote for Republicans. This is how Trump won among boomers.

Try googling Silent Generation voting data and see what you come up with. Pew research only. Then try googling the others. You'll get all kinds of data.

Yes, all kinds of data except the the data you need. That has to be inferred from age ranges, which don't perfectly overlap with generational boundaries. But it's not an especially difficult inference.

I'll be waiting for those voting numbers of those born only between 1946 and 1964. Good luck.

I'm not too worried about getting an ostrich's head out of the sand.

 

[mumblethrax]

Yes. Every generation gets more conservative as they get older. Just as young people are rebellious and desperate for change, so old people are staid and fearful of it. But does it really have that much effect?

People don't really get more conservative as they get older. Rather, people are more or less fixed in their political ideology after their formative years, and the ground shifts out from under them.

Voters of all ages voted for Trump. Many boomers did not vote for Trump.

Obviously.

Firstly, Trump received ~3 million less votes than Clinton - so if anything was 'responsible' for Trump it was our non-democratic electoral process that allows the loser to get 34% more electoral votes than the winner (of the popular vote).

People have trouble with multifactorial problems. Our dumb electoral system is a but-for cause of Trump's win, and so is the fact that Trump won among baby boomers, who are by far the largest portion of the electorate by age. If Clinton had won among boomers, we likely never would have had a President Trump (the nature of our dumb electoral system makes this difficult to say with certainty, but I'm confident a ~2% difference in the vote would have shifted a couple of states).

Secondly, of voters aged 50-64 (29% of the electorate), 51% voted for Trump vs 45% for Clinton. That means only 6% of them (1.7% of the electorate) were 'responsible' by virtue of their age group.

This is bad accounting. We can't distinguish between a hypothetical Trump voter who exceeded some threshold and one who didn't. They're all responsible or none are.

But if we look at other criteria there were much larger differences. Among non-college grad whites (44% of the electorate) 64% voted for Trump vs only 28% for Clinton. But among non-college grad non-whites (19% of the electorate), a mere 18% voted for Trump vs 77% for Clinton. And of non-whites overall, only 6% of Blacks and 28% of Hispanics voted for trump. Clearly there is a lot more going on here than age or generation.

Yes, there are much better predictors than age or generation. If I remember correctly, a measure of racial resentment was the best predictor of a Trump vote--better than level of education or race.

So saying 'Boomers voted for Trump' is misleading.

Like I said, we can contest the relevance, but not the truth of the idea that Trump won among boomers. The former is reasonable, the latter is not.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

You're just denying an unpleasant reality because it reflects negatively on an identity you've incorporated into your own.

That happens a lot on this planet.

 

[Roboramma]

They aren't distinct groups. These are arbitrary divisions.

Those things can both be true.

"The majority of boomers are Democrats" isn't useful for answering the question "Did boomers vote for Trump?" if Democrats are capable of voting for Trump, even if only in relatively small numbers, and of course they are.

Or if democrats are capable of not voting. You don't even need some democrat boomers to have voted for Trump, just more of them to have abstained than republican boomers.

 

[carlitos]

Or, in the case of 2016, have voted for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson in a few key states. Probably around 3 - 4% of boomers did this.

 

[sackett]

Hey, all you generations! Get back to the point!

Sadly....It is going to become necessary to kill a number of the bastards to keep them from taking over.

Wellsir, dude ole pal, I see you're at it again, prefacing your remarks with "sadly," and finishing with electronic bloodthirst. How's that different from plain old phony tough?

I'm afraid it does you no credit, and I mightily deplore it in these ugly-enough-already times.

Because pretty often I feel the same way.

 

[dudalb]

Wellsir, dude ole pal, I see you're at it again, prefacing your remarks with "sadly," and finishing with electronic bloodthirst. How's that different from plain old phony tough?

I'm afraid it does you no credit, and I mightily deplore it in these ugly-enough-already times.

Because pretty often I feel the same way.

I put a lot of stock in history, and I am not seeing many situations where a Fascist movement has reached the level is has in the US without a lot of blooshed resulting.

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
You're just denying an unpleasant reality because it reflects negatively on an identity you've incorporated into your own.

Thanks for the psychological diagnosis. I'll give it the weight it deserves.

 

[mumblethrax]

Thanks for the psychological diagnosis. I'll give it the weight it deserves.

Being invested in protecting your own identity isn't diagnostic of anything beyond being human.

 

[sackett]

I put a lot of stock in history, and I am not seeing many situations where a Fascist movement has reached the level is has in the US without a lot of blooshed resulting.

Please elaborate.

 

[carlitos]

Well, the UK before WWII got pretty fascist. Oh, never mind. Bad example.

 

[Stacyhs]

I wouldn't wish Carlson on Budapest. It's a lovely city.

 

[Norman Alexander]

I wouldn't wish Carlson on Budapest. It's a lovely city.

I wouldn't wish Carlson on anybody, or anything anywhere. He IS a disease. He should be eradicated.

 

[Stacyhs]

I wouldn't wish Carlson on anybody, or anything anywhere. He IS a disease. He should be eradicated.

The fact his show is the most popular one on Fox just reinforces my view that Trump supporters are freaking idiots.