(538) Americans are changing their views on race and gender to match their party - Polidicks

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/people-are-changing-their-views-on-race-and-gender-issues-to-match-their-party/ Nearly two years after the 2016 election, the parties continue to fight about race and gender. In Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation process, Democrats felt that allegations of sexual assault had been brushed aside while Republicans felt that accusations were being unfairly used to further a political agenda. In states’ voter roll purges, Democrats saw suppression aimed at black voters while Republicans saw the racialization of a purely political dispute. How is it that the two parties see issues of race and gender so differently? A huge body of research has shown that voters were more divided by race and gender views in the 2016 election than they were in previous elections. But it turns out that rather than voters supporting the party that best represents their views about race and gender, the effect may more often work the other way — the parties may be shaping voters’ personal beliefs. Candidates and elected officials can drive a person to change their views, or loyalty to a party may dictate both a person’s beliefs and their candidate preferences. The 2016 campaign in particular produced large swings in racial attitudes that moved to match voters’ partisanship, especially among voters who paid close attention to politics. Donald Trump’s incendiary remarks — and Hillary Clinton’s efforts to highlight them as disqualifying — probably moved more Democrats to perceive discrimination as an important problem that needs to be addressed (with some Republicans adopting the opposite view). The cause-and-effect relationship is less clear when survey participants were asked directly about their general feelings toward various racial groups. The same seven-survey study examined how warmly participants felt toward white people and racial minorities. White Americans who felt more warmly toward white people than black people in 2016 became more Republican (though partisanship also led some to change their views of the two racial groups). But voters’ views of specific racial issues, rather than their broader feelings about minority groups, were more likely to follow their candidate preferences. A study by Peter Enns at Cornell University found that Trump and Clinton voters changed their views on controversies like the Black Lives Matter movement to match their candidate’s views, rather than choosing their candidate based on their views about this issue. We have less evidence on how gender attitudes changed, but voters may also have shifted their attitudes toward women during 2016 to match their candidate’s stance. Survey experiments and a panel study show that Trump’s comments about women made his supporters more willing to both tolerate and express sexist views — changes that were still evident in 2018. Meanwhile, Democrats’ belief that gender discrimination is a big problem has increased since Trump’s election. Although media attention has largely focused on Trump voters, a working paper showed that it was actually Clinton voters who underwent the more dramatic partisan shift in 2016 (echoing other findings). The largest changes in views of race and gender occurred among white liberals; their perceptions of racial and gender discrimination increased, their feelings toward minorities improved, and their support of policies aimed at increasing diversity, like affirmative action and allowing more immigration, rose. Voters who consistently voted Democratic moved to the left on these questions, especially young voters. That means studies that show an increased association between Trump support and conservative views on race and gender might in part actually reflect Democrats becoming more liberal on these questions.

A study by Peter Enns at Cornell University found that Trump and Clinton voters changed their views on controversies like the Black Lives Matter movement to match their candidate’s views, rather than choosing their candidate based on their views about this issue. This isn't a race-and-gender specific issue at all. This is a "politics as a team sport" issue. We let the politicians do this to us, and it's very convenient for them.

If only we didn't start using race/gender/religion/etc to politically divide people in the first place, we could be paying attention to more important stuff.

That's what the rich and politicians want. If people are divided about that stuff they can't see how fucked they are.

I would like to see how America works out if politicians weren't listed by party on the ticket, only name, and weren't allowed to use their party names in their campaigns. So many people vote by party alone and don't realize that they fundamentally disagree with the person they're voting for on key issues. By way of example, here in Texas, the Republicans just voted to eliminate the straight ticket option on the ballot. The Democrats fought it fiercely but it went through and was signed by our Republican governor. Now Republican voters who use the straight ticket option are complaining that it's a Democrat conspiracy to suppress their voting rights, not realizing that the Democrats actually tried to do what they wanted in the first place. If politicians were forced to actually discuss their platforms in their campaigns and parties were eliminated from ballots, I think you'd see a significant reduction in poll turnouts, but anyone who does vote would be forced to do at least cursory research on the candidates. It'd be a significant barrier to partisan politics.

I hate that "politics as a team sport" shite, it's not about being good, it's about winning. Now a'days literally everything can be about politics, right down to what you had for breakfast.

And this won’t happen if all 50 states or nation adopted a better multi-party-based system to lessen divisions and team politics if all them have 5 to 10 parties with several completely original and different ideologies.

Divide and Conquer. A tried and true strategy.

It's the new attitude of "if you don't agree with literally every single aspect of my ideology then you're the ENEMY" mentality that's popped up. It's why "centrist" has become a stupid insult because apparently if you don't hardline on everything you believe and join a group that must mean you have absolutely no opinions.

Boilrig had a good point in the previous thread you know. Where that candidate said gender civil rights were on the top of their list. There are much much bigger fish to fry in the world right now, they are using these issues to garner votes from a people who's priorities are very fucked up.

this might shock you, but once you really get the hang of the whole 'object permanence' thing, you might realize that people can care about more than one thing at a time

I'd say such issues are at the forefront when the opposing party, is trying to strip those rights away.

There's no need to point it out though. If someone goes "LGBT rights are very important" you just nod and agree, because it's already a given that the environment, poverty and other things are just as if not more important. In fact, if you point out that "there are bigger fish to fry" you're just gonna annoy people by patronizing them at best, or seem like you don't actually care about equality and human rights and are just downplaying it in order to hide your true opinions at worst.

"Wow your priorities are so fucked up wanting civil rights to be extended to all Americans instead of ranting about jobs jobs jobs 24/7 to appease fucking idiots"

You think LGBTs need democrats to campaign for them to not vote republican in the first place? "You can't care about this because there's bigger issues" Can be applied to absolutely everything and is never a valid argument. Otherwise we'd be talking about climate change 24/7 and never anything else that matters to us. We're talking about civil rights, not some trivial thing. And there are MANY other reasons to not vote republican on top of that one very important reason.

Holy shit. I'm not saying civil rights shouldn't be on the agenda, but with the current international political climate, America's ever failing economy, rampant homelessness and drug problems, your prison system, your law system in general all needing vital reworks. LBGT rights should maybe be somewhere lower on the list. Quite high, but not top. No?

division by all of those has been happening since the dawn of civilisation, we'd have to restart the world to get rid of it

Maybe we just need to teach people to be a little more individalistic?

american individualism, the "fuck you I got mine", is part of a whole other set of problems teach people empathy

I think the violation of human rights should be at the top of the list lol

That's why if you actually read the Democrat platform, many other things are also there. No?

Just get everybody to sign an NPA. And if they violate it you can send in your child slave cyborg ninjas with nukes.

Why shouldn't giving a minority group of citizens the same rights as the other citizens of your country be a top priority? It's literally an issue touching the very foundation of a nation, its people. And as everyone else has said, you can top prioritize multiple issues.

When I posted the other day in response to JohnnyMo1 about you lowkey constantly supporting far-right shit with vague defences, it was this kind of shit that I was referring to. Eradicating LGBT rights is an attack on civil rights as a whole. It sets a precedent that entire entire group can be legally blackballed from that point on. Civil rights should always rank somewhere pretty fucking close to first place in a party platform as a fairer and equal society, where minority groups are being purposefully left out of basic protections, allows the society to produce more. Citizens who aren't being currently oppressed are more willing to contribute, more able to contribute and overall happier with their lives. Being told you have fewer legal protections, making employment harder to obtain and forcing you to repress parts of your being in public for fear of retaliation that you can do nothing about legally are not good for a country. You don't just fix economies and shit like that magically, you need a population that can realise your ideals. And oppressing people isn't the way to do that. Stop this concern trolling bullshit for once in your life, yeah?

Governements don't have a list of things they work on one by one and only move to the next once the issues on top are fixed. It doesnt work like that. Some things are incredibly difficult to work on and legislate. Others aren't. And they work on many policies and changes at once. Not violating human rights and not attacking LGBTs takes roughtly 0 days to work. It wouldn't be an issue wasting governements time at ALL if destroying civil rights wouldnt be republicans' favorite hobby.

They have a list of priorities, what I am saying is that while LGBT rights are certainly important, nobody on the political spectrum seems to be speaking about Americans awaiting trial for sometimes more than a decade in prison. You seem to have very particular things that you point out when waving the human rights flag. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/19/us/alabama-kharon-davis-speedy.html This is very, very common. LGBT should absolutely have rights, and there has been a constant progression in the west of these rights where before they weren't even recognized as a group. While this is certainly under threat in the US, the political stance people are taking is nothing short of having the purpose of gathering votes. If you actually cared about civil rights as a whole, to all citizens, then there are many, many things that need to be addressed critically alongside this. Of course this is hugely important, but you civil rights in the US is already dogshit and this LGBT issue is just an extension of that. As I said, it should be a priority, but certainly not the highest, LGBT people are a minority and there are issues that effect absolutely everybody that are not being addressed in these elections. The prison system profiteering on the US Law system is such a massive affront to civil rights and it effects everyone. Where is the outcry?

what the fuck are you talking about reformation of the justice system has been a democratic priority for over a decade

You're legit showing me an article from one of the largest newspaper in the country reporting about this issue, and telling me nobody talks about it. Your post is pretty gross, ngl. You don't actually care about this. Where is your outcry? Where are your posts about the unfair prison system in the US? You mention this issue for the first time it in a completely unrelated conversation just to use it as a "gotcha!" and tell us we don't care about it because we're talking about something else right now. Guess what yes I think the prison system is shit in the US and i've criticised it before, and so do democrats and progressives all of the time. Are the Republicans doing anything about it? Do you understand why there's particular attention on LGBT rights right now? Because republicans are stripping away their rights while violence against us is rising. All US lgbts are asking is to be left alone, and attention is put on them because republicans are absolute moral troglodytes. And you're blaming THEM FOR IT?

Again, you seem to do this every thread without a single solitary shred of self-awareness. People are upset about these things, there is an outcry about the prison system and it's injustices. Is that outcry the same outcry that's worried about LGBT rights? Not neccesarily, but I bet most people in support of LGBT rights also support better prison systems. Basically, you assume something based on ignorance, take that as your key point, and hold on to it despite any and all evidence that an aspect of your argument is wildly flawed. there is a large outcry about the prison system and it's injustices. People can focus on more than one thing at a time. Trans people are facing being "legislated out of existence" and you wonder, out loud might I add, why people would be concerned with that at a high level. Maybe, just maybe, there's an easily understood reason if you would just drop your pretense for like, 10 fucking seconds.

It's almost like These are different unrelated issues! It's entirely possible for a party to attack justice reform and civil rights at the same time. The two issues are intertwined (high levels of corruption and prejudice in the justice system feeds into lowered civil rights), but have different vectors you can attack them from without treading on the toes of one another. Similarly with the homelessness issue (because I just know you'd move the goalposts to that next), it's a huge issue you can attack whilst also doing less than nothing by not actively removing legal protections for minority groups. Legit, protecting minorities with the legislation that already exists requires zero work, it's all there. Add protections for other recognised groups (trans folk for example) requires a bit of work but not any real financial investment. The homelessness problem can't be solved without a stable enough economy to provide financial support and a safety net for the most vulnerable. How do you fix up the economy faster? BY NOT TREATING ENTIRE GROUPS OF THE POPULATION AS LESS THAN HUMAN! 😲 Civil rights are quite low effort pieces of legislation to pass, it's largely just changes in wording in existing legislation or a few new sections for outlier bespoke parts. There is zero excuse for them to be bumped down the list when they barely even occupy a space on the list effort wise.