USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

[Ludicus]

Observing that left wing radicals have sought to encourage ethnocentrism among nonwhites ...

It doesn't make sense.Academic links please,observational studies ...the far-right relies on ethnocentric notions of the nation, not the left.

Does authoritarianism imply ethnocentric national attitudes: A revised look at the "authoritarian triad" and right wing ideology.
(PDF) Implicitly White: Right-Wing Nihilism and the Politicizing of Ethnocentrism in Sweden
Church Involvement, Ethnocentrism, and Voting for a Radical Wing Party: diverging behavioural Outcomes of Equal Attitudinal Disposition

[Cope]

@Legio_Italica

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I don’t disagree that the Democratic base has moved to the left, as have voters in general. What I’m looking for is the connection to the “radical left wing extremism” that has allegedly pushed White Christian conservatives to embrace Trump, per the initial claim. As I said, there are extremes in any political cleavage. For example, I identify as a conservative, but I consider conservatives who believe the “foreign born population” to be a “status threat to whites” for ideological reasons as extremist as liberals who believe in blanket amnesty, if not more so in light of history. The existence of the latter is not exculpatory to the former.

This is a slippery slope argument. I don’t disagree with the idea that White Christian conservatives fear mongered a slippery slope argument based on perceived threats to white majority status, or that this is why statistically they voted for Trump. Extreme ideology and policies actually happening under the Trump Admin, backed by his voters/supporters, cannot logically be caused by the conceptual existence of extreme policy and ideology within the left side of the spectrum, which is what the initial claim was. Hillary Clinton is not a left wing extremist, nor were her policy positions, any more than were Obama’s.

I don’t object to your semantic preference for the term “white in-group bias.” I’m not sure how that indicates any aspect of the study to be based on “flimsy progressive standards.”


Why is opposition to right wing extremism an example of left wing extremism? As for African Americans, it’s hardly surprising they are strongly opposed to the alt-right, given the latter’s beliefs about African Americans and people of color, let alone historical experience.

Why is opposing white nationalism and considering it a domestic terrorist threat an example of left wing extremism? The FBI, for example, has been battling white nationalist/supremacist extremism for decades. The DHS considers it a domestic terror threat equivalent to Islamic terrorism.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...olence/598501/

Why is legalizing gay marriage extremist? Why is seeking to reduce police violence extremist? Why is protecting people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation extremist? More slippery slope arguments? The fact that certain extremists find those things to be extremist does not make them so. These are all issues that were addressed under the Obama Admin, which we’ve just established was politically and ideologically moderate. Obama himself, as the patron saint of the American Left, cautioned against the more reflexive fringe group think aspects of “woke” culture therein.

So far you’ve made the case that the White Christian conservatives who became Trump voters were motivated by white identity politics and the perceived status threat to the historical white racial majority in the US posed by immigrants. What I’m not seeing is actual evidence that “left wing extremism” pushed said voters to behave this way, nor anything that conflicts with the findings of or terminology used by the study you initially took issue with. Based on what you’ve laid out, I’d be curious to see where exactly you depart from the traditional left wing narrative that Trump support is motivated by white racial resentment, or as you put it, white in-group bias.

The long term statistical trends which played a significant role in Trump's candidacy (both in the GOP primaries and the general election) have already been established: there had been leftward lurch among Democratic voters; there had been a liberalization - particularly on the left - of attitudes toward immigration; there had been a dramatic decline of conservative voices within academia; the steady decline of both Christianity and the white majority had continued; In 2013, race-relations (which had been strong during Obama's 1st. term) began collapsing.

The Pennsylvania study I provided goes into detail on how some of these trends affect perceived status threat:

Simply reminding whites about their impending loss of majority status produces feelings of threat in experimental studies, particularly among those who think of the “American way of life” as being white. Consequences of exposure to information about impending majority–minority status have included increased conservatism and greater identification with the Republican Party.

From another, similar study:

In sum, the results of these two studies provide convincing evidence that merely thinking about impending ethnic demographic changes can have important psychological consequences for Whites in North America. Consistent with predictions derived from SIT and IET, growing ethnic diversity is experienced as threatening to Whites, and this heightened sense of threat can increase negative feelings toward ethnic minorities and increase the degree to which Whites identify with their race and feel sympathy toward their in-group. In some North American and European countries we are decades away from a time when Whites will no longer be a numerical majority. However, as this research shows, expectations about the future can shape current attitudes and feelings about race relations. Given the inevitability surrounding demographic change, it is important for social psychologists to continue to examine how anticipating intergroup futures can affect current intergroup realities.

From this data/analysis it is fairly straightforward to extrapolate, even beyond racial/demographic issues, that the more openly progressive Democratic voters became, the further conservatives lurched to the right to compensate for it (a conclusion which is borne out by the data on political polarization). This is an essential reason why, even though the established Democratic candidates never openly expressed extremist positions, their failure to properly denounce the loud activism of left-wing radicals in the so-called "culture war" (which outlets like Fox News made sure to report on) worked in Trump's favour.

On the point about specific instances of leftist radicalism, I have already cited the European Union's handling of the migrant crisis as an example. The fact that the Democratic Party/Obama administration wasn't responsible for decisions made in Brussels is irrelevant: regardless of where the extremism originated, as a matter of foreign and domestic policy, the migrant crisis (and the spate of terror attacks associated with it) had a material effect on the presidential campaign.

We know, for instance, that it inspired Trump's flagship proposal to "shutdown" all Muslim migration to the US - an idea which was not only supported by most Europeans at the time but which also resonated well with American conservatives. This was precisely because, as a candid, radical response to the extremities of hubristic progressive policy making, it allayed status fears among the Republican base - a finding which is absolutely consistent with what we would expect, given the long term statistical trends noted above.

In terms of identifying exclusively domestic cases of radicalism, we could go through a near endless litany of examples ranging from the trivial (obnoxious anti-white content published by Buzzfeed/Salon/MTV) to the extreme (the mass murder of police officers by a black nationalist), but because the culture war is such a broad subject, and because there are already so many threads dedicated to it in this forum, it would probably be more efficient for you to read around the subject on your own.

Alternatively, you could just watch South Park.

Why is opposition to right wing extremism an example of left wing extremism? As for African Americans, it’s hardly surprising they are strongly opposed to the alt-right, given the latter’s beliefs about African Americans and people of color, let alone historical experience.

I didn't claim that opposition to right wing extremism was an example of left wing extremism. You questioned my comment that alt-right's message encouraged solidarity among nonwhites ("what is this solidarity you speak of?") and then asked me to provide examples of how "it had manifested in national political policy or proposals".

[Lord Thesaurian]

@ep1c_fail

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

@Legio_Italica

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[FONT=Verdana]

The long term statistical trends which played a significant role in Trump's candidacy (both in the GOP primaries and the general election) have already been established: there had been leftward lurch among Democratic voters; there had been a liberalization - particularly on the left - of attitudes toward immigration; there had been a dramatic decline of conservative voices within academia; the steady decline of both Christianity and the white majority had continued; In 2013, race-relations (which had been strong during Obama's 1st. term) began collapsing.


The Pennsylvania study I provided goes into detail on how some of these trends affect perceived status threat:


From another, similar study:


From this data/analysis it is fairly straightforward to extrapolate, even beyond racial/demographic issues, that the more openly progressive Democratic voters became, the further conservatives lurched to the right to compensate for it (a conclusion which is borne out by the data on political polarization). This is an essential reason why, even though the established Democratic candidates never openly expressed extremist positions, their failure to properly denounce the loud activism of left-wing radicals in the so-called "culture war" (which outlets like Fox News made sure to report on) worked in Trump's favour.


On the point about specific instances of leftist radicalism, I have already cited the European Union's handling of the migrant crisis as an example. The fact that the Democratic Party/Obama administration wasn't responsible for decisions made in Brussels is irrelevant: regardless of where the extremism originated, as a matter of foreign and domestic policy, the migrant crisis (and the spate of terror attacks associated with it) had a material effect on the presidential campaign.


We know, for instance, that it inspired Trump's flagship proposal to "shutdown" on all Muslims migration to the US - an idea which was not only supported by most Europeans at the time but which also resonated well with American conservatives. This was precisely because, as a candid, radical response to the extremities of hubristic progressive policy making, it allayed status fears among the Republican base - a finding which is absolutely consistent with what we would expect, given the long term statistical trends noted above.


In terms of identifying exclusively domestic cases of radicalism, we could go through a near endless litany of examples ranging from the trivial (obnoxious anti-white content published by Buzzfeed/Salon/MTV) to the extreme (the mass murder of police officers by a black nationalist), but because the culture war is such a broad subject, and because there are already so many threads dedicated to it in this forum, it would probably be more efficient for you to read around the subject on your own.


Alternatively, you could just watch South Park.

More slippery slope arguments and non sequiturs?

So far you’ve made the case that the White Christian conservatives who became Trump voters were motivated by white identity politics and the perceived status threat to the historical white racial majority in the US posed by immigrants. What I’m not seeing is actual evidence that “left wing extremism” pushed said voters to behave this way, nor anything that conflicts with the findings of or terminology used by the study you initially took issue with. Based on what you’ve laid out, I’d be curious to see where exactly you depart from the traditional left wing narrative that Trump support is motivated by white racial resentment, or as you put it, white in-group bias.

I didn't claim that opposition to right wing extremism was an example of left wing extremism. You questioned my comment that alt-right's message encouraged solidarity among nonwhites ("what is this solidarity you speak of?") and then asked me to provide examples of how "it had manifested in national political policy or proposals".

So far you haven’t provided any evidence that:

I'd actually argue that you wouldn't have gotten Trump (or rather, the particular policies he's been pushing) without the extremism on the "left" spreading throughout society

If you don’t want to provide or don’t have evidence and would prefer to state your personal opinions about “culture wars,” that’s fine. You haven’t answered a number of my questions either, so it’s difficult not to repeat myself. As I said:

You can certainly cosign that claim to whatever degree you wish, but it’s not a factual one, per the available data. If the “activists” who shouted down Biden get their wish for blanket amnesty, you might eventually have an example of “radical left wing extremism” being unchallenged by conservatives and pushing voters to embrace Trumpism. That will not apply to 2016 or 2020.

[alhoon]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/29/u...rris-2020.html

So... early success then tumbling down with no visible path to win for Kamala Harris. I guess that makes her similar to Ben Carson in 2016.

From what I see, KHarris tries to pivot back to the moderate side of the Democrats as she senses Biden weakening - a month too late with her staff disillusioned and angry.

[Cope]

@ep1c_fail

More slippery slope arguments and non sequiturs?

So far you haven’t provided any evidence that:

If you don’t want to provide or don’t have evidence and would prefer to state your personal opinions about “culture wars,” that’s fine. You haven’t answered a number of my questions either, so it’s difficult not to repeat myself. As I said:

The evidence has been provided, both through the data, source material and explanations.

The PEW research found that, although more consistent alignment with either ideological position (liberal or conservative) did not necessarily imply a more consistent alignment with extreme views, on the "important determinant" (the language of your source) issue of immigration, it did.


Source.

The more people identified with consistently liberal positions, the more likely they were to adopt what the study referred to as a "peripheral" position on migration (and vice versa). This means that the more that Dem./lean Dem. voters lurched to the left, the more likely they were to adopt an extreme* view on migration. As we saw from the studies (including your own) the more exposed conservatives/whites were to liberal attitudes/ideas toward migration/demographic change, the more threatened they felt and the more likely they were to vote for Trump.

As mentioned, this theory (which is a standard example of reactionary conservatism) played out in real time as a consequence of the EU's response to the refugee crisis. The emergence of extreme views on Muslim migration into Europe, the reestablishment of far-right political parties on the continent and the UK's vote to exit the Union were, in large part, a consequence of reactionary attitudes toward progressive migratory policies/views.

*whether or not you think that supporting immediate eligibility for citizenship is an "extreme" or "radical" position view is subjective. It is, and at the time of the survey was, well outside of the normal policy debate.

[Lord Thesaurian]

The evidence has been provided, both through the data, source material and explanations.

I don’t know why you continue to assert this, only to motte and bailey the claim I responded to with slippery slope arguments and non sequiturs. Of course “consistently liberal” respondents are are going to support more relaxed standards for immigrants to obtain citizenship than are “consistently conservative” respondents. The claim was that voters were pushed to choose Trump by left wing extremism spreading throughout society. The study I referenced indicates what actually pushed them statistically speaking, and there are any number of others which have come to similar conclusions. Choosing Trump due to white “racial in group bias” and “perceived status threats” among White Christian conservatives is not choosing Trump due to “extremism on the left spreading throughout society.”

[Cope]

I don’t know why you continue to assert this, only to motte and bailey the claim I responded to with slippery slope arguments and non sequiturs. Of course “consistently liberal” respondents are are going to support more relaxed standards for immigrants to obtain citizenship than are “consistently conservative” respondents. The claim was that voters were pushed to choose Trump by left wing extremism spreading throughout society. The study I referenced indicates what actually pushed them statistically speaking, and there are any number of others which have come to similar conclusions. Choosing Trump due to white “racial in group bias” and “perceived status threats” among White Christian conservatives is not choosing Trump due to “extremism on the left spreading throughout society.”

Perceived status threats are directly affected by exposure to liberal/progressive attitudes and policies. This is shown unequivocally in the source material. That's why when an increasing number of liberals adopt "peripheral"/radical views on migration, conservatives experience a heightened sense of status threat and are encouraged to vote for an unusually reactionary candidate like Trump. Thus, when "anti-immigrant sentiments" are shown to be an "important determinant" we can surmise that increasingly extreme attitudes toward migration among parts of the population were at least partially responsible for Trump's election.

[Ludicus]

Yes, but it’s a worthy discussion in any case.

Indeed,

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Download this paper,
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Deliver...028990&mirid=1
Trumpism and American Democracy: History, Comparison, and the Predicament of Liberal Democracy in the United States

This is the reason why I'm not really a fan of the American Presidential system.And frankly, it's not completely off-topic. So I quote,

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

...in a presidential system characterized by a fundamental cleavage over racial identity, an outsider candidate has gone some distance toward exploiting the dual-legitimacy problem that Linz singled out as the Achilles’ heel of presidential systems. Trump’s propensity to trash once taken-for-granted democratic norms at a breathtaking pace and inject vitriol and demonization into politics on an unprecedented scale suggests that the might go even further in this direction. The fervor of his supporters suggests that the threat of the emergence of rival legitimacies is real. Nonetheless, we can conclude with three observations about the contemporary moment in American politics. First, is American democracy under threat? Our answer is yes: comparative experience suggests that these are not propitious conditions for democratic durability, and certainly not for effective government performance. How serious is the threat?...

--
I'm waiting for an answer, epic1_fail. #1041

----

conservatives experience a heightened sense of status threat

Terror Management Theory (TMT; Greenberg et al., 1997) proposes that mortality concerns may lead people to reject other cultures than their own.
Here,(PDF) Terror Management Theory of Self-Esteem and Cultural ...

..led to less favorable attitudes about Muslims and multiculturalism among participants with high (rather than low) national identification and low (rather than high) self-esteem (Study 1)

Don't blame others.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Perceived status threats are directly affected by exposure to liberal/progressive attitudes and policies. This is shown unequivocally in the source material.

The studies you referenced stated that:

Simply reminding whites about their impending loss of majority status produces feelings of threat in experimental studies, particularly among those who think of the “American way of life” as being white. Consequences of exposure to information about impending majority–minority status have included increased conservatism and greater identification with the Republican Party.

So, white people who equate being American with being white are more likely to identify as Republicans. Another non sequitur vis a vis the original claim. As I said:

I don’t disagree with the idea that White Christian conservatives fear mongered a slippery slope argument based on perceived threats to white majority status, or that this is why statistically they voted for Trump. Extreme ideology and policies actually happening under the Trump Admin, backed by his voters/supporters, cannot logically be caused by the conceptual existence of extreme policy and ideology within the left side of the spectrum, which is what the initial claim was. Hillary Clinton is not a left wing extremist, nor were her policy positions, any more than were Obama’s.

That's why when an increasing number of liberals adopt "peripheral"/radical views on migration, conservatives experience a heightened sense of status threat and are encouraged to vote for an unusually reactionary candidate like Trump. Thus, when "anti-immigrant sentiments" are shown to be an "important determinant" we can surmise that increasingly extreme attitudes toward migration among parts of the population were at least partially responsible for Trump's election.

That’s your personal opinion based on “extrapolations” and non sequiturs. As I said, you’re welcome to believe that “you wouldn't have gotten Trump (or rather, the particular policies he's been pushing) without the extremism on the "left" spreading throughout society,” but it’s not factual.

@Ludicus: I’m not sure what the conclusions of the study have to do with Parliamentary vs American separation of powers, but thank you for the interesting and compelling read. One thing we know for sure is, GOP majority MPs are not going to take any punitive or politically damaging action against their chosen PM Trump.

[Cope]

The studies you referenced stated that:

So, white people who equate being American with being white are more likely to identify as Republicans. Another non sequitur vis a vis the original claim. As I said:

That’s your personal opinion based on your “extrapolations” and non sequiturs. As I said, you’re welcome to believe that “you wouldn't have gotten Trump (or rather, the particular policies he's been pushing) without the extremism on the "left" spreading throughout society,” but it’s not factual.

It is clear that an exposure to certain views/information affects status threat perceptions. In the Craig and Richeson research (which I cited in a previous post) one of their studies showed that independent, white respondents were more likely to endorse conservative policies after having been exposed to material which drew attention to demographic shifts.

"Overall, in a nationally representative sample of White Americans, making the U.S. racial shiftsalient led to greater endorsement of conservative policies, compared with making a nonracial societal shiftsalient. Furthermore, these effects were mediated byparticipants’ concerns about the loss of Whites’ societalstatus. The conservative shift emerged for both racer elated and more race-neutral policies. Hence, theseresults offer compelling evidence that making a majority minority racial shift salient can lead Whites to perceivethat their racial group’s status is threatened and, in turn,to express greater political conservatism."

A few final thoughts:

I. You openly acknowledged that conservatives embracing radical positions "creates more room in the public for the opposite ideological extreme". But when I put it to you that liberals embracing radical positions (as shown by the PEW data) created room in the public discourse for Trump's extremism in 2016, you accuse me of peddling non-sequiturs.

II. No one has stated that the claim you keep referring to (which wasn't even made by me) was provably factual. That doesn't mean the things I have said are without justification. I don't know why you'd expect a discussion about the complexities of voter psychology/motivation to draw irreproachable conclusions in the first place.

[Lord Thesaurian]

It is clear that an exposure to certain views/information affects status threat perceptions. In the Craig and Richeson research (which I cited in a previous post) one of their studies showed that independent, white respondents were more likely to endorse conservative policies after having been exposed to material which drew attention to demographic shifts.

Acknowledging the demographic decline of the white racial majority in the US is not an example of left wing extremism.

I. You openly acknowledged that conservatives embracing radical positions "creates more room in the public for the opposite ideological extreme". But when I put it to you that liberals embracing radical positions (as shown by the PEW data) created room in the public discourse for Trump's extremism in 2016, you accuse me of peddling non-sequiturs.

I’m not sure what you’re asserting via this false equivalence. I said:

People who pushed for blanket amnesty during the Obama years didn’t get it, nor anything close. The Trump Admin is seeking to reduce and deter both legal and illegal immigration as a whole for ideological and political reasons. The latter case is categorically different from a conservative policy-based approach to immigration enforcement, and naturally creates more room in the public discourse for the opposite ideological extreme. As John Kelly aptly said, “empty barrels make the most noise.”

You said

Opposition to migration isn't so much about "criminal immigrants" as it is about demographic change and, in the context of the 2008 crisis, increased competition in labor market

Opposition to amnesty for immigrants who have committed felonies is a potentially unbiased, policy-based position based on optimizing inputs and outcomes for society per the basic conceptual mandate of government. Opposition to immigration on the basis of eroding white majority status is based on personal selective bias and prejudice, which creates room for the opposite biased ideological extreme within the public discourse by sheer contrast. These are, as I said in the same post, categorically different things. If you want to cosign the claim that “left wing extremism spreading throughout society caused Trump/Trump’s policies” to any extent, you have to provide factual evidence (notwithstanding the fact that the original claimant hasn’t either), especially since this conceptual left wing extremism did not translate to actual left wing extremist policy under Obama or the would-be Clinton Admin.

II. No one has stated that the claim you keep referring to (which wasn't even made by me) was provably factual. That doesn't mean the things I have said are without justification. I don't know why you'd expect a discussion about the complexities of voter psychology/motivation to draw irreproachable conclusions in the first place.

Another user said:

Obama's epiphany aside, I'd actually argue that you wouldn't have gotten Trump (or rather, the particular policies he's been pushing) without the extremism on the "left" spreading throughout society, see above.

I said that’s not factual and provided one of any number of similar studies explaining how we “got Trump or rather his policies.” You said,

What your source refers to as "racial resentment" is better described as racial in-group bias - a neurological/psychological characteristic which is far more pronounced among nonwhite Americans than white Americans . The existence of this trait doesn't disprove athanaric's theory that there is a correlation between a heightened sense of ethnocentrism among white conservative voters and the growth of left wing radicalism (which is known for attempting to weaponize ethnocentrism among nonwhites).

I said call it white racial in group bias if you want, my point stands. If you want to back away from the other user’s claim now, or use it to segue into explanations of your own personal opinions and/or ideology, that’s fine. Choosing Trump due to white “racial in group bias” and “perceived status threats” among White Christian conservatives is not choosing Trump due to “extremism on the left spreading throughout society.”

[Cope]

Acknowledging the demographic decline of the white racial majority in the US is not an example of left wing extremism.

I’m not sure what you’re asserting via this false equivalence. I said:

You said

Opposition to amnesty for immigrants who have committed felonies is a potentially unbiased, policy-based position based on optimizing inputs and outcomes for society per the basic conceptual mandate of government. Opposition to immigration on the basis of eroding white majority status is based on personal selective bias and prejudice, which creates room for the opposite biased ideological extreme within the public discourse by sheer contrast. These are, as I said in the same post, categorically different things. If you want to cosign the claim that “left wing extremism spreading throughout society caused Trump/Trump’s policies” to any extent, you have to provide factual evidence, especially since this conceptual left wing extremism did not translate to actual left wing extremist policy under Obama or the would-be Clinton Admin.

Another user said:

I said that’s not factual and provided one of any number of similar studies explaining how we “got Trump or rather his policies.” You said,

I said call it white racial in group bias if you want, my point stands. If you want to back away from the other user’s claim now, or use it to segue into explanations of your own personal opinions and/or ideology, that’s fine. Choosing Trump due to white “racial in group bias” and “perceived status threats” among White Christian conservatives is not choosing Trump due to “extremism on the left spreading throughout society.”

You're misconstruing opposition to radical views about migration as being an independent factor in determining voter choice. It is not. The theory is that the lurch toward more extreme views about migration among liberals merely encouraged certain voters to think more conservatively about migration, demographic change and race-relations. To that extent it can be cited as a partial explanation for Trump's election in 2016. Again, this is a fairly standard way of understanding how reactionary attitudes manifest themselves within conservative movements.

[Lord Thesaurian]

You're misconstruing opposition to radical views about migration as being an independent factor in determining voter choice. It is not. The lurch toward more extreme views about migration among liberals merely encourages certain voters to think more conservatively about migration, demographic change and race-relations. To that extent it can be cited as an explanation for Trump's election in 2016.

I’m not misconstruing anything. So far no one has provided evidence to support the claim that “you wouldn't have gotten Trump (or rather, the particular policies he's been pushing) without the extremism on the "left" spreading throughout society,” which is all I’ve asked for given that such a claim is not in line with available data.

[Cope]

I’m not misconstruing anything. So far no one has provided evidence to support the claim that “you wouldn't have gotten Trump (or rather, the particular policies he's been pushing) without the extremism on the "left" spreading throughout society,” which is all I’ve asked for given that such a claim is not in line with available data.

The data/analysis shows that it is a reasonable hypothesis: had fewer liberals adopted radical views on migration, it is perfectly possible that fewer conservatives/white people would have been encouraged to vote for Trump. To reiterate, the fact that Trump built one of his flagship policies - the Muslim ban - around opposition to a radical left migratory policy speaks for itself.

[Lord Thesaurian]

The data/analysis shows that it is a reasonable hypothesis: had fewer liberals adopted radical views on migration, it is perfectly possible that fewer conservatives/white people would have been encouraged to vote for Trump. To reiterate, the fact that Trump built one of his flagship policies - the Muslim ban - around opposition to a radical left migratory policy speaks for itself.

Again, what radical views on immigration are those? By which liberals? It wasn’t the Obama Admin or Clinton platform, so who? How did the latter cause White Conservative Christians to be “agitated” by the demographic decline of the white racial majority in the US, associate the latter with immigration, and therefore become Trump voters? Which radical left migratory policy under any recent prior US administration are you referring to? I’ve asked these questions a number of different ways now, and you’ve responded with motte and baileys built on slippery slope arguments and non sequiturs. You’ve made a series of inferences and extrapolations to justify your personal opinions, not a hypothesis.

[Cope]

Again, what radical views on immigration are those? By which liberals? It wasn’t the Obama Admin or Clinton platform, so who?

As I already illustrated in this post, the PEW data shows that 45% of those who identified as consistently liberal (a growing demographic) supported "peripheral" views on migration.

How did the latter cause White Conservative Christians to be “agitated” by the demographic decline of the white racial majority in the US, associate the latter with immigration, and therefore become Trump voters?

"Perceived status threats are directly affected by exposure to liberal/progressive attitudes and policies...That's why when an increasing number of liberals adopt "peripheral"/radical views on migration, conservatives experience a heightened sense of status threat and are encouraged to vote for an unusually reactionary candidate like Trump."

Which radical left migratory policy under any recent prior US administration are you referring to?

I'm referring to EU, not US policy. I explained it this way:

"The fact that the Democratic Party/Obama administration wasn't responsible for decisions made in Brussels is irrelevant: regardless of where the extremism [that is, extremist views on migration] originated, as a matter of foreign and domestic policy, the migrant crisis (and the spate of terror attacks associated with it) had a material effect on the presidential campaign."

I’ve asked these questions a number of different ways now, and you’ve responded with motte and baileys built on slippery slope arguments and non sequiturs. You’ve made a series of inferences and extrapolations to justify your personal opinions, not a hypothesis.

Inferences and extrapolations are typically how people construct hypotheses, especially in social sciences. I am yet to see you justify your accusations that my argument is based on logical fallacies.

[Lord Thesaurian]

As I already illustrated in this post, the PEW data shows that 45% of those who identified as consistently liberal (a growing demographic) supported "peripheral" views on migration.

And I responded:

Of course “consistently liberal” respondents are are going to support more relaxed standards for immigrants to obtain citizenship than are “consistently conservative” respondents. The claim was that voters were pushed to choose Trump by left wing extremism spreading throughout society. The study I referenced indicates what actually pushed them statistically speaking, and there are any number of others which have come to similar conclusions. Choosing Trump due to white “racial in group bias” and “perceived status threats” among White Christian conservatives is not choosing Trump due to “extremism on the left spreading throughout society.”

"Perceived status threats are directly affected by exposure to liberal/progressive attitudes and policies...That's why when an increasing number of liberals adopt "peripheral"/radical views on migration, conservatives experience a heightened sense of status threat and are encouraged to vote for an unusually reactionary candidate like Trump."

Which radical liberal/progressive attitudes and policies are those? You said the heightened sense of status threat among white Christian conservatives was caused by the belief that immigration is eroding the white majority demographic.

I'm referring to EU, not US policy.

So, you don’t have an example of “left wing extremism spreading through society to cause Trump/Trump’s policies.”

Inferences and extrapolations are typically how people construct hypotheses, especially in social sciences. I am yet to see you justify your accusations that my argument is based on logical fallacies.

Making inferences to support your personal opinions because you can’t or won’t present the requested evidence for a specific claim or claims is not how hypotheses are constructed.

[Cope]

And I responded: Which liberal/progressive attitudes and policies are those?

The ones espoused by the 45% of consistently liberal people who have adopted peripheral/radical views on migratory policy. For clarity, it is also worth pointing out "that those at both the left and right ends of the spectrum, who together comprise about 20% of the public overall, have a greater impact on the political process than do those with more mixed ideological views. They are the most likely to vote, donate to campaigns and participate directly in politics."

You said the heightened sense of status threat among white Christian conservatives was caused by the belief that immigration is eroding the white majority demographic.

Correct. And this sense of status threat becomes heightened further still through exposure to material which either reinforces, or promotes further, the idea that the erosion is occurring.

So, you don’t have an example of “left wing extremism spreading through society to cause Trump/Trump’s policies.”

This isn't a coherent response to the particular thread of the conversation which it purports to be addressing.

Making inferences to support your personal opinions because you can’t or won’t present the requested evidence for a specific claim or claims is not how hypotheses are constructed.

The evidence has been presented.

[Lord Thesaurian]

The ones espoused by the 45% of consistently liberal people who have adopted peripheral/radical views on migratory policy. For clarity, it is also worth pointing out "that those at both the left and right ends of the spectrum, who together comprise about 20% of the public overall, have a greater impact on the political process than do those with more mixed ideological views. They are the most likely to vote, donate to campaigns and participate directly in politics."

Of course “consistently liberal” respondents are are going to support more relaxed standards for immigrants to obtain citizenship than are “consistently conservative” respondents. Of course people who are more likely to participate in the political process have a greater impact the political process than those who are less likely to participate. The claim was that voters were pushed to choose Trump by left wing extremism spreading throughout society. The study I referenced indicates what actually pushed them statistically speaking, and there are any number of others which have come to similar conclusions. Choosing Trump due to white “racial in group bias” and “perceived status threats” among White Christian conservatives is not choosing Trump due to “extremism on the left spreading throughout society.”

Correct. And this sense of status threat becomes heightened further still through exposure to material which either reinforces or promotes further the idea that the erosion is occurring.

Acknowledging the demographic decline of the white racial majority in the US is not an example of left wing extremism.

The evidence has been presented.

As I said:

So far you’ve made the case that the White Christian conservatives who became Trump voters were motivated by white identity politics and the perceived status threat to the historical white racial majority in the US posed by immigrants. What I’m not seeing is actual evidence that “left wing extremism” pushed said voters to behave this way, nor anything that conflicts with the findings of or terminology used by the study you initially took issue with. Based on what you’ve laid out, I’d be curious to see where exactly you depart from the traditional left wing narrative that Trump support is motivated by white racial resentment, or as you put it, white in-group bias.

[Cope]

Of course “consistently liberal” respondents are are going to support more relaxed standards for immigrants to obtain citizenship than are “consistently conservative” respondents. Of course people who are more likely to participate in the political process have a greater impact the political process than those who are less likely to participate. The claim was that voters were pushed to choose Trump by left wing extremism spreading throughout society. The study I referenced indicates what actually pushed them statistically speaking, and there are any number of others which have come to similar conclusions. Choosing Trump due to white “racial in group bias” and “perceived status threats” among White Christian conservatives is not choosing Trump due to “extremism on the left spreading throughout society.”

Acknowledging the demographic decline of the white racial majority in the US is not an example of left wing extremism.

As I said:

Incoherently pasting previously addressed comments isn't moving the conversation forward. It is also, so far as I can recall, against the rules of the forum.

That said, you seem to be operating under the assumption that the key issues being discussed exist in isolation. They do not. As I've stated before, it is a perfectly reasonable to hypothesize that the 20% of people with radical attitudes toward migratory policy (who were likely to be "discussion influences") inadvertently encouraged a hardening of attitudes among those who, for reasons largely race related, already held skeptical or conservative views on migration. Those people then became more likely to vote for a strongly anti-immigrant candidate like Trump.

In other words: radical progressives frighten conservatives into overreacting. Hardly a controversial thought.