Is it really an illusion? Will non-whites vote as a bloc? Or will the different ethnic groups scatter their voters depending on culture?
From the article, "It would appear that the "emerging Democratic majority" requires anti-white identity politics as its midwife." That would explain a lot.
Minorities that have good jobs and work mostly vote fiscally Republican. High earning workers might be the minority in the future welfare state though (not entirely their fault that factories have gone overseas or robotic). Most minorities are socially liberal however so they tend to be moderates.
We already know that it depends on the group. If they're from a low IQ population, they're going to vote for democrats because democrats pay them with welfare. Low IQ means you're probably going to be working in a job that isn't much fun, so why take a job you don't like if you can just sit on your butt and wait for your free money? High IQ populations generally don't need much welfare because they can make enough money to make getting on welfare is taking a serious reduction in income.
It's a shame that you are incapable of explaining the irony of this tragic situation. If you could, but... as you say, you can't.
Almost certainly not, and they already don't. The African-American population is the most bloc-oriented, but Latinos are less so, and they're the demographic that really holds the keys to our political future. Latinos might vote as a bloc as their power expands. It's too early to tell.
That is nice, but studies show republican voters have become the low IQ gullible while those with more education and knowledge tend to be less gullible and vote democrat because they do not fall for republican lies as much. Of course since republicans have labelled science and education as the enemy and embraced god did it as a answer it is not terribly surprising. It may have been the case decades ago when republicans embraced intellectual elitism and things like college as something desired that they maintained standards that lead to higher education, but today the republican icon is more larry the cable guy than a person who can graduate high school.
Ask me anything about theoretical physics or research level mathematics. I happen to have a PhD in quantum field theory. 100% #TrumpTrain and proud nationalist.
A majority of voters with some college voted for Trump. Neither Trump nor Clinton got a majority of college graduates, though Clinton got a slim plurality. The vanishingly small category of postgraduates voted 58% for Clinton. Those are not emphatic numbers at all.
Either the education was not that good, or you are trying to deceive me because there would be a medium bias here and you would be a single point of data. Oh, and some of the people who are really great at physics can be gullible and stupid also, I am not saying you are, but there may be many political and social things that a physicist might miss. I don't even need to test your claim to blow it away.
If one were to think about it the majority of people clinton lost were informed voters. Trump got the stupid vote wrapped up, and there is no denying that. That is not to say everyone who voted for trump is stupid, but rather trump appealed to the stupid much more than clinton. Trump was not playing to the elite educated in his campaign, and most educated voters stayed way away from him.
Try me. "A single point of data" - no. The majority of college educated whites voted Trump. Your sickening "low IQ and poorly educated" class scorn towards the working class is getting exposed for what it is.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...s-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/ College educated whites vote majority Republican. Have been for 30 years. And that's discounting Generation Z, which is the most conservative generation in history, and is only coming to voting age in the near future.
College is not going to give anybody a higher IQ, just like joining the basketball team is not going to turn a midget into Wilt Chamberlain. It's also not a very good indicator of intelligence, since they take anybody who can pay the tuition. Not always true, of course, but not all university departments are the same. Somebody who majors in gender studites at SJW U is not the intellectual equivalent of somebody who managed to get into the engineering department at MIT. What studies are you referring to, anyway?
Studies? Really and what studies are those? Links please or are those like the tired old liberal lie of "unnamed sources"? I would suggest that such a statement is indicative of a low IQ and the delusion that liberals are so much smarter than everyone else. Liberals are so deluded they don't even know what they don't know and assume that they are intellectually superior by association. Sad.
Erm, no, it doesn't. Because your study makes no difference between people who major in an actual field like law, science, medicine etc, and a major in gender studies. Gender studies majors are not "educated".
