> Outside of a pure data context, saying that over and over again suggests that somehow people with degrees are better capable of selecting the leaders of everyone, which is an extremely elitist perspective.
If you're educated, if you're middle class, like most people here, you want a president - any politician really - to be better than you. You want people smarter than you running the country, because you understand that governing is a boring job that requires skill.
But the second job of the president is to be a role model, to be a good example. And if the president is too good, too perfect, too clean, there's a bunch of people who are going to feel alienated or inferior. And that turns into resentment and hate.
So then Trump comes along. A sexist, racist, buffoon who ignores political correctness. And for a lot of people, having him as a role model makes it easier to keep up, to compare yourself. "He says it like it is", they say. His terribleness gives them permission to be equally terrible. If the president can grab women by the pussy, they can grab women by the pussy.
I don't know if splitting the Head of State from Chief Executive would help solve it, a lot of other countries have split the role, it's not like they have to go together. But it's clear that the governing job has to be moved away from the idiotic popularity contest that is the presidential election so that we can ensure we get people capable of governing in the role.
I think your message missed the point that you're replying to. Or, maybe you've accidentally added a datapoint in the direction of the argument I'm making, which is that it is elitist to believe or desire or suggest or push the notion that people with college or higher degrees are better able to determine leaders than the non-educated. I can expound on this - fundamentally ethical, not rational - argument if desired. I'd argue even that it is an anti-democratic attitude. My argument begins like this. College degrees correlate with wealth, and people without degrees are, on average, lower in the income scale than those with college degrees. 70% of American adults don't have American degrees. Therefore, if you continue down the path of associating college degrees with correct voting, not only are you classist, you're an elitist.
And you've also threw in "not politically-correct" into sexist and racist. As if, political correctness the correct approach, and it's on par with sexism and racism. That actually bothers me a lot, because sexism and racism are often actions, political correctness is speech, and speech is considered on par with action. But it bolsters the arguments that elites don't understand what the polling is saying, many Americans don't like political correctness. It skews right-wing, but there are a large number of economically left-wing people who, also, don't like political-correctness. The polls show it. And the two journalists I quoted above also reference this, and I can send some data if desired.
No, I'm saying that the two camps use radically different criteria for selecting a president, and this is why they don't understand each others argument or motivations.
The educated "elites" use competency as a criteria, and the last four years clear show of incompetency and inability to govern seals the deal for them, and they don't understand how anyone could come to any other conclusion.
Meanwhile, the other camp is using relatability. They see all his flaws, and think that it makes Trump more human, and therefore a better president. They think Biden lacks "energy", and don't understand how anyone could want to vote for him.
Both sides are voting "correctly" according to their own criteria, which is why they're both so incredibly bewildered by how the other side votes. The disconnect isn't because one side is "better" at picking than the other using shared criteria, it's because both sides are using different criteria completely.
I think that there's a different argument, though, to explain the two-camp phenomenon. One clue is the locations of the red v. blue voters, and another is in the shifting of certain demographics I highlighted in the comment you replied to above. To recap, we noted that Trump's support among EVERY group that are not white males has gone up, not down. Among white males, Trump's support dropped by 4 points, but among blacks and especially hispanics, it went up.
I think there's a Left and a Right stance on cultural issues, and there's a Left and a Right stance on economic issues. Did you know that if you ask the question: Do you think racism is the most important issue facing America today? .. that the answer Yes is more likely to be seen the higher the degree of the person? So that's a good example of a Cultural Left issue of the present.
Let's take an Economic Left issue, minimum wage. I'm going to cherry pick one from a right-wing state, Florida. They voted to increase the minimum wage this week, which should come as a surprise.
Then you have the polling showing that Americans in large majority support a government healthcare option.
So clearly there is a shift going on here where Democrats are representing Cultural Left issue but, aside from a few Progressives within them, are still Economic Right. Trump had Economic Left talking points, even if he wasn't honest about them. That's why he won those people over. Much of the DNC are Cultural Left but Economic Center or Right, as evidence by Jeff Bezos happily putting BLM slogans on AWS console pages and dedicating much of the Washington Post to race and gender issues.
In summary: upper class liberals favor the establishment DNC because of their focus on the Cultural Left issues, like gender and race, and less educated / poorer and for sure rural cultural groups often favor a Trumpian set of politics. Should we even talk about the right-wing attitudes about hands-off Silicon Valley and Wall St. among mainstream Democrats? And how else would you explain the Republicans suddenly talking anti-Wall St. rhetoric (Tucker Carlson), opposing NAFTA (Trump [ stealing Bernie's talking points ], and taking an economic Populist approach to tariffs and trade?
If you're educated, if you're middle class, like most people here, you want a president - any politician really - to be better than you. You want people smarter than you running the country, because you understand that governing is a boring job that requires skill.
But the second job of the president is to be a role model, to be a good example. And if the president is too good, too perfect, too clean, there's a bunch of people who are going to feel alienated or inferior. And that turns into resentment and hate.
So then Trump comes along. A sexist, racist, buffoon who ignores political correctness. And for a lot of people, having him as a role model makes it easier to keep up, to compare yourself. "He says it like it is", they say. His terribleness gives them permission to be equally terrible. If the president can grab women by the pussy, they can grab women by the pussy.
I don't know if splitting the Head of State from Chief Executive would help solve it, a lot of other countries have split the role, it's not like they have to go together. But it's clear that the governing job has to be moved away from the idiotic popularity contest that is the presidential election so that we can ensure we get people capable of governing in the role.