Connect with us

News

The ‘Shy Trump Voter’ Is A Suburban Woman

Published

on

Days before the presidential election, establishment media like The Washington Post claimed the “shy Trump voter” was no longer a thing. On-brand with big media’s track record of being wrong, exit polls are telling the opposite story.

Indeed, there was a “shy Trump voter,” but it wasn’t the blue-collar worker pollsters missed in 2016. Instead, the shy Trump voter of 2020 was a highly educated “she.”

According to a post-election survey conducted by Public Opinion Strategies, the biggest “shy Trump” constituency of 2020 was a white, college-educated woman. Of all Trump voters, 19 percent said they kept their support for the president a secret from most of their friends, compared to just 8 percent of Joe Biden voters who did the same.

The survey found the shy Trump voter accounted for 4 percent of the overall electorate—and 64 percent of that group were women. Of course, the exit polling could be wrong. In fact, the actual percentage of shy Trump voters is likely higher. After all, the very definition of one is someone who declines to disclose his vote.

As political science professor Eric Kaufmann put it in an article exploring “Who are the real Shy Trumpers?,” “political correctness has left a cadre of white college graduates unwilling to reveal their voting intentions.” Kaufmann offers evidence that there is a shy Trump vote coming not from white, working-class MAGA supporters but from affluent Republican-leaning voters in the suburbs­­ who are afraid to share their views on politics and hot-button cultural issues in public.

The fact that President Trump received more than half of the white female vote thus far is nothing short of astounding compared to the narrative of the past four years: That white, suburban women were leaving Trump and the Republican Oarty in droves. Fake evidence presented by a Democrat Party and their friends in the media who desperately wished it to be true came from the midterm election—which historically almost always swings in favor of the party not in control of the White House—and from pink you-know-what hats protesting in cities that always vote blue.

In reality, here’s what was happening on the ground: “I got called a white supremacist and a racist so I kept it to myself so I wouldn’t hear those words,” one woman told Public Opinion Strategies, as reported in its post-election survey. A sampling of others said: “I had neighbors say they would like to kill all Trump supporters. These were people with whom I really got along with well.”

“It was for my own safety. Some of my friends could be very negative. I did not want friendships to end.” “I have had three people unfriend me on Facebook.”

It’s ironic that those who now claim the country needs “unity” were so hostile to right-leaning voters that millions of them felt the need to conceal their vote. But when 50 percent of strong liberals support firing Trump donors, the threat to their livelihoods is real.

The shy Trump voter phenomenon is explained in a 2020 Cato survey that found that Republicans with the most education were the most worried their political views could cause them harm at work. Sixty percent of those surveyed with postgraduate degrees feared financial penalty for their political views, compared to just 25 percent of Democrats. The more education Republicans received, the more they worried their political views could cause them harm at work.

Instead of risking financial penalty or friendships from sharing their views, highly educated Trump supporters conceal their views socially but voice them at the polls. While sad, it’s understandable.

Suburban women with college degrees often have families at home. As Generra Peck, senior advisor at N2 America, found in her research of this group, suburban women choose to live in the suburbs because “they value things like good schools, they value law and order, [and] they value a strong economy.” These are policies Republicans support. But suburban women “overwhelmingly” refuse to even talk about voting for Trump because they worry about how they’ll be perceived amongst their peers.

Beyond the political implications, the most important takeaway of the shy Trump vote is for college-educated conservative women to know they’re not alone. Behind them is a growing army of strong, independent, educated women who dare to think and vote on their own.

Scrolling through Instagram, it rarely feels that way. But social media distorts our views about where the country stands politically. Instead of making us feel connected, it makes us feel alone.

Until the left decides to change course and do more than tell us what tolerance is, the trend of self-censorship will get worse. Instead of having robust conversations and debate, we’ll have a political climate where half the country shuts up, except for when they vote.

Kelsey Bolar is a contributor to The Federalist and a senior policy analyst at Independent Women’s Forum. She is also the Thursday editor of BRIGHT, a weekly newsletter for women, and the 2017 Tony Blankley Chair at The Steamboat Institute. She lives in Washington, DC, with her husband, daughter, and Australian Shepherd, Utah.
Photo mccauleys-corner / Flickr

Author: Kelsey Bolar

Source: The Federalist: The ‘Shy Trump Voter’ Is A Suburban Woman

Continue Reading

News

Media Elites Not Trump Supporters Are Disconnected From Reality

Published

on

It’s not Trump supporters who are living in a fantasyland, but members of the corporate media who sense their power and influence waning.

With the end of Donald Trump’s presidency fast approaching, we’ve seen a surge of columns and posts asserting that Republicans and Trump supporters have lost touch with reality. After four years of marinating in “falsehoods” and “disinformation”—a term that really just means “information I don’t like”—Trump’s backers are all turned around, we’re told. They believe much that isn’t so.

David Brooks of The New York Times explains that these poor saps, most of whom, he says, are uneducated, uncredentialed people who don’t live in prosperous cities, have retreated to conspiracy theories to explain their misfortune and unhappiness. “People in this precarious state are going to demand stories that will both explain their distrust back to them and also enclose them within a safe community of believers,” he writes. Trump, QAnon, and Alex Jones “rose up to give them those stories and provide that community.”

Over at The New Yorker, editor David Remnick ponders the grave costs of Trump’s “assault on the press and the truth,” asking how many COVID-19 victims “died because they chose to believe the President’s dismissive accounts of the disease rather than what public-health officials were telling the press? Half of Republican voters believe Trump’s charge that the 2020 election was ‘rigged.’ What will be the lasting effects on American democracy of that disinformation campaign?”

These are just representative samples, but across the mainstream commentariat the gist is all the same: if you support Trump, you’re likely a poor person who believes conspiracy theories and is dangerously disconnected from reality, partly because you resent successful people like Messrs. Brooks and Remnick. You live in a fantasyland because it assuages your feelings of inferiority, which are mostly justified. You’re paranoid because you’re powerless, and the alternate reality you’ve constructed for yourself gives you a sense of power and agency in a confusing, unsettled world.

But here’s the thing. Everything these media elites say about Trump supporters can more properly be said about media elites themselves. Who really has been living in a fantasyland these last four years? Is it the ordinary Americans—including a lot of educated, white-collar professionals—who voted for a president they felt would shake up the sclerotic status quo in Washington, or a press corps that perpetuated an actual conspiracy about Trump-Russia collusion for years?

It was Remnick’s New Yorker, after all, that published a serious-seeming essay in September 2018 that claimed Facebook had been weaponized by “Russian agents who wanted to sow political chaos and help Trump win” in the 2016 election—an effort, the author said, that had an “astonishing impact.” Never mind the preposterousness of claiming that a couple hundred thousand dollars in Facebook advertising had an “astonishing impact” on the outcome of the 2016 election, there has never been a shred of evidence that “Russian interference” changed or altered even a single vote in 2016.

A New Yorker staff writer named Evan Osnos wrote that article. Osnos won the National Book Award in 2014 and in 2015 was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. He’s won many other prizes and worked all over the world, and, just before the election, published a flattering book about former Vice President Joe Biden. Osnos is the sort of fellow Brooks has in mind when he talks about “professional members” of the “epistemic regime”—the people who know what’s real and tell us so, a job for which they are richly rewarded.

What else has this supposedly enlightened member of the epistemic elite told us? In June, he compared Trump’s White House, which had a temporary fence around it after Black Lives Matter protests turned into riots, to the Zhongnanhai, the seat of China’s communist government in Beijing, where “people are more accustomed than Americans are to the notion of leaders who live and work secluded from the public.”

Earlier that month, Osnos dashed off a post that described—falsely, as it turned out—protests in Lafayette Square on June 1 as “peaceful.” We all know, even if the media refused to report it, that the protesters were not at all peaceful, and in fact were hurling “bricks, frozen water bottles and caustic liquids” at police.

This isn’t really about Osnos, his hackery notwithstanding, but about his professional class—a class that fervently believes much that isn’t so. Despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, members of Osnos’ class still believe that Trump got substantial help from Russia in 2016. They believe, still, that Trump is a dangerous authoritarian who might just destroy the republic. They believe, still, that the only reason tens of millions of Americans would support Trump is that they are racists or rubes, or both.

Osnos and Remnick and the rest of our media elites believe these things for the same reason Brooks thinks Trump supporters are conspiracy theory-addled suckers: they are becoming irrelevant, they are losing power and influence, their status as members of the epistemic regime is uncertain—indeed, their entire regime seems to be collapsing, and they know it.

It’s not too much to say, quoting Brooks, that “people in this precarious state are going to demand stories that will both explain their distrust back to them and also enclose them within a safe community of believers.”

So we will continue to see stories and commentary from the epistemic regime that soothe men like Brooks, Remnick, and Osnos, assuring them all is well, that credulous, mendacious Trump supporters have been put in their place, and that after a harrowing four years, all is once again as it should be.
John is the Political Editor at The Federalist. Follow him on Twitter.

Author: John Daniel Davidson

Source: The Federalist : Media Elites, Not Trump Supporters, Are Disconnected From Reality

Continue Reading

News

The Tragedy Of Black Education Is New

Published

on

Several years ago, Project Baltimore began an investigation of Baltimore’s school system. What it found was an utter disgrace.

In 19 of Baltimore’s 39 high schools, out of 3,804 students, only 14 of them, or less than 1%, were proficient in math.

In 13 of Baltimore’s high schools, not a single student scored proficient in math.

In five Baltimore City high schools, not a single student scored proficient in math or reading.

The left is actively working to undermine the integrity of our elections. Read the plan to stop them now. Learn more now >>

Walter E. Williams, Ph.D., a columnist for The Daily Signal, was a professor of economics at George Mason University until his death Dec. 2, 2020.

Several years ago, Project Baltimore began an investigation of Baltimore’s school system. What it found was an utter disgrace.

In 19 of Baltimore’s 39 high schools, out of 3,804 students, only 14 of them, or less than 1%, were proficient in math.

In 13 of Baltimore’s high schools, not a single student scored proficient in math.

In five Baltimore City high schools, not a single student scored proficient in math or reading.

The left is actively working to undermine the integrity of our elections. Read the plan to stop them now. Learn more now >>

Despite these academic deficiencies, about 70% of the students graduate and are conferred a high school diploma—a fraudulent high school diploma.

The Detroit Public Schools Community District scored the lowest in the nation compared to 26 other urban districts for reading and mathematics at the fourth- and eighth-grade levels.

A recent video captures some of this miseducation in Milwaukee high schools: In two city high schools, only one student tested proficient in math and none are proficient in English.

Yet, the schools spent a full week learning about “systemic racism” and “Black Lives Matter activism.” By the way, a Nov. 19 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article asks: “How many Black teachers did you have? I’ve only had two.” The article concludes, “For future Black students, that number needs to go up.”

New York City is one of many school systems in the United States set to roll out Black Lives Matter-themed lesson plans. According to the New York City Department of Education, teachers will delve into “systemic racism,” police brutality, and white privilege in their classrooms.

Should we blame this education tragedy on racial discrimination or claim that it is a legacy of slavery? Thomas Sowell’s research in “Education: Assumptions Versus History” documents academic excellence at Baltimore’s Frederick Douglass High School and others. This academic excellence occurred during the late 1800s to mid-1900s, an era when blacks were much poorer than today and faced gross racial discrimination.

Frederick Douglass High School of yesteryear produced many distinguished alumni, such as Thurgood Marshall and Cab Calloway, and several judges, congressmen, and civil rights leaders. Frederick Douglass High School was second in the nation in black Ph.D.s among its alumni.

Also in Sowell’s “Education: Assumptions Versus History” is the story of Paul Laurence Dunbar High School, a black public school in Washington, D.C. As early as 1899, its students scored higher on citywide tests than any of the city’s white schools. From its founding in 1870 to 1955, most of its graduates went off to college.

Dunbar’s distinguished alumni include U.S. Sen. Edward Brooke, physician Charles Drew, and, during World War II, nearly a score of majors, nine colonels and lieutenant colonels, and a brigadier general.

Today’s Paul Laurence Dunbar and Frederick Douglass high schools have material resources that would have been unimaginable to their predecessors. However, having those resources have meant absolutely nothing in terms of academic achievement.

If we accept the notion that rotten education is not preordained, then I wonder when the black community will demand an end to an educational environment that condemns so many youngsters to mediocrity. You can bet the rent money that white liberals and high-income blacks would not begin to accept the kind of education for their children that most blacks receive.

The school climate, seldom discussed, plays a very important role in education. During the 2017-18 school year, there were an estimated 962,300 violent incidents and 476,100 nonviolent incidents in U.S. public schools nationwide. Schools with 1,000 or more students had at least one sworn law enforcement officer. About 90% of those law enforcement officers carry firearms.

Aside from violence, there are many instances of outright disrespect for teachers. First- and second-graders telling teachers to “Shut the f— up” and calling teachers “b—h.”

Years ago, much of the behavior of young people that we see today would have never been tolerated. There was the vice principal’s office where corporal punishment would be administered for gross infractions. If the kid was unwise enough to tell his parents what happened, he might get more punishment at home.

Today, unfortunately, we have replaced practices that worked with practices that sound good and caring. And we are witnessing the results.

COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM
A Note for our Readers:

Election fraud is already a problem. Soon it could be a crisis. But election fraud is not the only threat to the integrity of our election system.

Progressives are pushing for nine “reforms” that could increase the opportunity for fraud and dissolve the integrity of constitutional elections. To counter these dangerous measures, our friends at The Heritage Foundation are proposing seven measures to protect your right to vote and ensure fair, constitutional elections.

They are offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free today.

Get the details now when you download your free copy of, “Mandate for Leadership: Ensuring the Integrity of Our Election System.”
Get Your Free Copy No

Author: Walter E. Williams

Source: Daily Signal : The Tragedy of Black Education Is New

Continue Reading

News

Justice Department Investigating White House Bribery-For-Pardon Scheme

Published

on

Federal investigators are probing whether someone attempted to bribe White House officials to obtain a presidential pardon, according to court documents unsealed Tuesday.

The heavily redacted documents say that prosecutors are investigating a “secret lobbying scheme” in which two individuals “acted as lobbyists to senior White House officials” to secure a pardon for an unidentified person.

The documents, first reported by CNN, do not identify the person seeking the pardon, or the person’s intermediaries.

Judge Beryl Howell, the chief justice of the Washington, D.C. district court, unsealed the documents along with a decision she issued on whether emails obtained by investigators are protected by attorney-client privilege.

Howell ruled on Aug. 28 that investigators will be able to review the emails as part of their investigation into the alleged bribery scheme.

Howell’s opinion in the case had remained under seal until Tuesday, in which she ordered the partially-redacted document to be made public.

The 18-page filing said that emails uncovered by a search warrant do not indicate that any direct payments were made to secure a pardon. They instead suggest that the person seeking clemency expected an unidentified intermediary to help in the alleged scheme due to their “past substantial campaign contributions.”

adace-ad id=”19126″]

The revelation comes as President Donald Trump is expected to issue a wave of pardons before he leaves office on Jan. 20, 2021. Trump pardoned former national security adviser Michael Flynn last Wednesday.

The New York Times reported that Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani has had discussions with the president about a pre-emptive pardon. Giuliani is reportedly a target of a federal investigation into his foreign business and lobbying dealings.

A Justice Department official said Tuesday that no government officials have been targets of the criminal investigation.

“No government official was or is currently a subject or target of the investigation disclosed in this filing,” the anonymous official told ABC News

Author: Chuck Ross

Source: Daily Caller: Justice Department Investigating White House ‘Bribery-For-Pardon’ Scheme

Continue Reading

Join Our Mailing List

Recent Post

Trending

Ad Blocker Detected!

Advertisements fund this website. Please disable your adblocking software or whitelist our website.
Thank You!