• Polling shows Trump supporters more hostile towards non-whites / Muslims
    24 replies, posted
[QUOTE][t]https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/MJL9diB4TYgk2aHr1ChIvn3L9hw=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7085317/Trump%20and%20Clinton%20race.jpg[/t] [t]https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/huxD55GtEFfMBGE7DzlYo10ce78=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7035881/racial%20resentment%20voters.png[/t][/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Hillary Clinton on Friday described Donald Trump supporters in what she acknowledged were “grossly generalistic” terms: “You could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the ‘basket of deplorables.’ Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it.” Was Clinton right? It’s impossible to say what’s in people’s hearts and minds, but we do have a lot of evidence from a number of nonpartisan polling firms — such as Gallup, the Pew Research Center, Reuters, and YouGov — that have asked Trump and Clinton supporters about their views on race, religion, and ethnicity. The findings suggest a great majority of Trump supporters hold unfavorable views of Muslims and support a policy that bans Muslims from entering the US. Most of them support proposals that stifle immigration from Mexico, and they agree with Trump’s comments that Mexican immigrants are criminals. And many — but not a majority — say that black people are less intelligent and more violent than their white peers. Now, the polls find majorities — even mega majorities — of Trump supporters holding such views. But that still leaves out a lot of Trump supporters who don’t share bigoted or prejudiced perspectives about people based on their race, ethnicity, or religion. It’s likely many are genuine conservatives who simply support the candidate they see as more conservative. (Clinton herself said that the people in the “basket of deplorables” make up “half,” not all, of Trump supporters.)[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Clinton supporters’ numbers are still alarmingly high — nearing one-third of all Clinton supporters on some questions. But her supporters are still less likely to hold prejudiced views against black people than Trump supporters. Other surveys have looked at more subtle ideas surrounding race, measured in what sociologists call “racial resentment.” Basically, researchers ask about other issues — whether one supports affirmative action for black people, whether police treat black people unfairly, and so on — to look for signs of resentment against black Americans. By this metric, Trump supporters are also way ahead of Clinton supporters: An analysis from Daniel Byrd and Loren Collingwood found white Trump supporters are much more likely to show high levels of racial resentment than Clinton’s white supporters.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE][url]http://www.vox.com/2016/9/12/12882796/trump-supporters-racist-deplorables[/url][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=]and they agree with Trump’s comments that Mexican immigrants are criminals[/QUOTE] I mean, 100% of illegal immigrants to the US are criminals, so they aren't really wrong. [editline]s[/editline] While I'm not sure if I agree with their statistics yet, I don't think anyone should be surprised by this data.
[QUOTE=Chonch;51041943]I mean, 100% of illegal immigrants to the US are criminals, so they aren't really wrong.[/QUOTE] [quote]immigrants[/quote] [quote]illegal immigrants[/quote] Key difference...
[QUOTE=Chonch;51041943]I mean, 100% of illegal immigrants to the US are criminals, so they aren't really wrong.[/QUOTE] more likely referring to trump's portrayal of immigrants as thieves and rapists
[URL="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_SC_21616.pdf"]This[/URL] was done by PPP back in January. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/e7ScPH0.jpg[/IMG] It only covers South Carolina which is a bastion of conservativism but even compared to supporters of other Republicans, Trump voters seem like hardliners. Scroll to the bottom of page 12 for relevant data.
[QUOTE=SataniX;51041950]Key difference...[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=bitches;51041951]more likely referring to trump's portrayal of immigrants as thieves and rapists[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Fort83;51041960]Because all immigrants from Mexico are illegal?[/QUOTE] Oops. Sorry, I see so many misrepresentations of Trump's popular illegal immigrant quote that I just automatically append "illegal" to any mention of the speech.
[QUOTE=Chonch;51041943]I mean, 100% of illegal immigrants to the US are criminals, so they aren't really wrong. [editline]s[/editline] While I'm not sure if I agree with their statistics yet, I don't think anyone should be surprised by this data.[/QUOTE] Specific question of the Fox poll [QUOTE]36. Recently, presidential candidate Donald Trump called for a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. He said Mexico is quote, “sending people that have lots of problems...They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” Setting aside how Trump worded his comments, do you think he’s basically right on this, or not? [/QUOTE]
While people are looking at trumps, look at the rest.. wow just wow.
[QUOTE=Chonch;51041967]Oops. Sorry, I see so many misrepresentations of Trump's popular illegal immigrant quote that I just automatically append "illegal" to any mention of the speech.[/QUOTE] The only one misrepresenting anything here is you. Next time just read more carefully.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51041954][URL="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_SC_21616.pdf"]This[/URL] was done by PPP back in January. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/e7ScPH0.jpg[/IMG] It only covers South Carolina which is a bastion of conservativism but even compared to supporters of other Republicans, Trump voters seem like hardliners. Scroll to the bottom of page 12 for relevant data.[/QUOTE] While I'd say the Reuter's/Ipsos numbers are pretty tight, PPP has questionable polling methods that call some of their validity into question so I would take any numbers by them with a grain of salt.
A huge chunk of Americans are racist or think shit of other religions. In other news the Earth is round and the Sky is blue.
[QUOTE=bdd458;51042067]While I'd say the Reuter's/Ipsos numbers are pretty tight, PPP has questionable polling methods that call some of their validity into question so I would take any numbers by them with a grain of salt.[/QUOTE] If you are referring to the Nate Cohn article, they deleted the questions that used the 2008 numbers. I haven't seen any criticisms of their polling for 2016.
For example, Nate Silver has called PPP out on herding AND withholding poll numbers they didn't agree on (specifically anti-gun lawmakers losing in a recall election in 2013). [url]http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-proof-some-pollsters-are-putting-a-thumb-on-the-scale/[/url] [url]http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/09/nate-silver-calls-out-ppp-172399[/url] [quote]PPP doesn’t follow many of the industry’s best practices, like calling voters' cell phones; the firm only calls landlines. It discards hundreds of respondents in an unusual process known as “random deletion.” And because PPP's interviewers rely on lists of registered voters—rather than random digit dialing—and simply ask non-voters to hang up the phone, the firm can’t use census numbers to weight their sample, as many other pollsters do. This forces PPP to make more, and more subjective, judgments about just who will be voting.[/quote] [url]https://newrepublic.com/article/114682/ppp-polling-methodology-opaque-flawed[/url] [url]http://theparadoxproject.org/blog-1/2015/12/21/is-public-policy-polling-a-reliable-source-no[/url] An interesting Op-Ed by Matthias Shaprio about how their sketchy polling methods (such as crowdsourcing troll questions, and the sequence they are asked) is bad for both sides of the spectrum. This piece was written specifically because of their Agrabah question back in December. [quote]McLaughlin also noted that the GOP respondents were asked this question after they were asked eight other questions about terrorism, while Democrat respondents were asked this question, but not any of the preceding questions. ... Some people believe more data is always a good thing. But there is a big difference between a poll or a survey that is conducted with integrity and serious thought and one that includes "silly" questions. "Silly" is how Public Policy Polling described their own question. "Silly" is their word, not mine. They stated plainly that they did this in order to "see if people would reflexively support bombing something that sounded vaguely Middle Eastern." The problem is that this poll question doesn't do that. In fact, it doesn't tell us anything about anyone. What it does is give us a stupid question against which we can overlay our own biases. Using this poll, we could conjecture that more Democrats than Republicans think Agrabah is a real city Martin O'Malley supporters are the dumbest and also the most bloodthirsty of the Democrat party, polling so high on pro-bombing they give Donald Trump supporters a run for their money Ben Carson supporters are the peaceniks But these conjectures would be nothing more than us looking at bad data and trying our hardest to draw the conclusions we want out of them. This question is a Rorschach test for us to take what we want to believe, assign a data point to it, and then preen in our own self-satisfaction that our bias about the "other team" has been confirmed. I hated that Democrats used this to confirm their biases about Republicans and then I hated that Republicans turned around and used the SAME BAD DATA when it confirmed their biases about Democrats. Digging through bad data and discovering that, hidden in the crosstabs, there is something that we can use to hit back at the "other team" does not suddenly make the data valid. This poll does not mean that Democrats are smug and stupid and more likely to have opinions about fake cities than Republicans. And it doesn't mean that Republicans want to bomb everything. This data is meaningless. It is a troll, a fake question with fake responses upon which we can overlay our biases.[/quote] PPP is not a pollster I think anyone should take too seriously. Though as I said, the numbers in the OP are probably fairly realsitic because it's Reuter's/Ipsos. [editline]12th September 2016[/editline] Though to get more on topic, I'm genuinely surprised about the rates for clinton supporters, would have expected a lot lower numbers for them.
[QUOTE=bdd458;51042120] [URL]http://theparadoxproject.org/blog-1/2015/12/21/is-public-policy-polling-a-reliable-source-no[/URL] An interesting Op-Ed by Matthias Shaprio about how their sketchy polling methods (such as crowdsourcing troll questions, and the sequence they are asked) is bad for both sides of the spectrum. This piece was written specifically because of their Agrabah question back in December. PPP is not a pollster I think anyone should take too seriously. Though as I said, the numbers in the OP are probably fairly realsitic because it's Reuter's/Ipsos.[/QUOTE] Fair play, they probably shouldn't be crowdsourcing questions from Salon writers. Regarding the poll I linked, can you find any problems with it? [editline]12th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=bdd458;51042120] Though to get more on topic, I'm genuinely surprised about the rates for clinton supporters, would have expected a lot lower numbers for them.[/QUOTE] I think it's interesting that Sanders numbers are higher in some categories.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51042153]Fair play, they probably shouldn't be crowdsourcing questions from Salon writers. Regarding the poll I linked, can you find any problems with it? [editline]12th September 2016[/editline] I think it's interesting that Sanders numbers are higher in some categories.[/QUOTE] Personally on that one, nothing that seems too out of the ordinary, but again I'd take what their numbers are with a grain of salt becuase their methods. Though tbh any polling companies numbers should never be taken on their own without some level of skepticism, although there are some that are leagues more trustworthy over others (like the ones given F's by 538 are definitely ones to entirely avoid). I would have to see numbers by other companies to judge it more fairly, bur yea looks about what you'd expect from SC. I always just try to look into whatever the source is (which is why I actually had all that info on hand, I was looking into PPP last night lol) for numbers, a statement, anything. I always try to find out about that stuff, just to see what possible angles numbers/an article is coming from, what biases an author, or polling company, or academic journal could have. And yeah, he Sanders supporter's one is alarming as well. Tbh it's telling of how far we still have to overcoming prejudice in the US.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51042153] I think it's interesting that Sanders numbers are higher in some categories.[/QUOTE] Sanders was pulling in a lot of support from blue collar workers, particularly in the rust belt. Haven't they been a more conservative demographic historically?
I feel shame knowing I'm in the minority when it comes to how I see other races compared to other white Americans.
What's more surprising to me is that 20-30% of Clinton's supporters answered in the same way as Trump's 40-50% of supporters did. Which would mean that 1/4 of Clinton supporters share the same views. Which yields about 37% of the total voter base if you want to extrapolate this poll from the small sample size. That's kinda fucked up.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51042293]What's more surprising to me is that 20-30% of Clinton's supporters answered in the same way as Trump's 40-50% of supporters did. Which would mean that 1/4 of Clinton supporters share the same views. Which yields about 37% of the total voter base if you want to extrapolate this poll from the small sample size. That's kinda fucked up.[/QUOTE] Yeah that caught me off-guard too. However I looked at the methodology and it's not too conclusive for either Clinton or Trump supporters. Eg on the matter of blacks being less intelligent than whites, respondents were asked to rate the intelligence of whites and the intelligence of blacks, and those who put down that blacks are less intelligent were therefore included in those graphs. But the graphs don't show by [i]how much[/i], on average, respondents thought blacks were less intelligent than whites. Eg a Trump supporter might have rated the intelligence of whites at 9 out of 10 and the intelligence of blacks at 8 out of 10. While a Clinton supporter might have rated 9 and 6, respectively. But both supporters are measured in the exact same way for those graphs.
Though considering these were calls at randoms, and I imagine more minorities are voting for Hillary, to have her percentage past 20% and only 10 points behind Trump in some cases is pretty surprising.
I find this very hard to take seriously being its from Vox.
I find any poll that tries to ask people to demean other people seriously. There's a lot of nasty thoughts in the back of peoples minds that get invoked when they are asked a question in a certain way. This reflects in the polls. Ex. "The terrorists destroyed the world trade center, killing 3000 Americans. Do you think we should show mercy to these terrorists?" vs "Do you think the U.S. should conduct extensive military operations in Iraq to search for the terrorists that attack the World Trade center?" Same type of question but interpreting the results would be completely different. 1st one invokes American fuck yeah, the second invokes oh fuck another war in the middle east, fuck that.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51042899]I find any poll that tries to ask people to demean other people seriously. There's a lot of nasty thoughts in the back of peoples minds that get invoked when they are asked a question in a certain way. This reflects in the polls. Ex. "The terrorists destroyed the world trade center, killing 3000 Americans. Do you think we should show mercy to these terrorists?" vs "Do you think the U.S. should conduct extensive military operations in Iraq to search for the terrorists that attack the World Trade center?" Same type of question but interpreting the results would be completely different. 1st one invokes American fuck yeah, the second invokes oh fuck another war in the middle east, fuck that.[/QUOTE] Which is why any poll worth its salt will account for that as much as they can.
[QUOTE=sb27;51042428]Yeah that caught me off-guard too. However I looked at the methodology and it's not too conclusive for either Clinton or Trump supporters. Eg on the matter of blacks being less intelligent than whites, respondents were asked to rate the intelligence of whites and the intelligence of blacks, and those who put down that blacks are less intelligent were therefore included in those graphs. But the graphs don't show by [i]how much[/i], on average, respondents thought blacks were less intelligent than whites. Eg a Trump supporter might have rated the intelligence of whites at 9 out of 10 and the intelligence of blacks at 8 out of 10. While a Clinton supporter might have rated 9 and 6, respectively. But both supporters are measured in the exact same way for those graphs.[/QUOTE] I mean rating them different at all is pretty awful imho [editline]13th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=dimitrik129;51042661]I find this very hard to take seriously being its from Vox.[/QUOTE] Then take the polls seriously? They just wrote an article about those.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.