I can't for a GOP stance that says DNA results are actually controversial among some scientists and politically charged
I do think that there's a larger margin for error in post-Trump polling than before because people hate to admit that they support him.
What on earth makes you think it will be a non-issue? We're talking about a guy who completely ignores facts and perpetuates falsehoods at the rate of email spammers.
I don't think that the "Trump Effect" is the same as the "Bradley Effect" or "shy Trump voter," and it involves more nuance, but I do think that there's got to be some explanation for how much better he did in some areas (albeit the areas where he did well overall). Intuitively, that makes sense. I fear that we're going to end up repeating the same shit by not acknowledging the lack of understanding on his effect on polling.
No one who was on the fence about him mocking her for not being a Native American or calling her "Pocahantas" is going to give a shit about DNA evidence and will latch onto what ever narrative he spins.
The samples in the midwest were over-educated while under-estimating the vote share of not educated white males. Been some good writing about it.
but should also note, the areas that had robust polling didn't miss. the overall vote share was nailed. it was a two-handed miss due to the incredibly high expense of polling these days and people prioritizing sexier states to try to make some money off results.
I'm familiar with it. I still worry that there is a polling deficiency "Trump effect" that has not yet been identified.
No no no, you don't get it, polls are meaningless. A secret portion of those saying they support Democrats, probably the majority of "Democrats," are just secret Trump voters. Not sure how you aren't getting this.
That doesn't make sense. If they're on the fence, that means they haven't bought into his depiction of it either, and she brought it up before he re-brought it up. At worst, it's a non-issue either way for those people. If they haven't bought the Trump rhetoric yet, odds are they won't.
It’s simple. There is no nuance. True KKK type racist don’t give a fuck if you call them racists. But, the majority that voted for trump aren’t that. They are either closet racists or don’t think they are so they don’t want to be confronted with/on their hate. Like I’ve stated over and over again if trump runs again he is winning.
We all come from the Great Rift Valley in Africa so we can all claim African ancestry? Why is this a story. Trump is retarded. I’m not even sure why she even indulged him. And people trumpeting that she had ancestry 6-10 generations ago look just as bad here.
My point was that there is no "on-the-fence" to the issue. If one had any inkling that she wasn't really an Indian (or actually cared about it one way or the other), they aren't going to be persuaded any more by a DNA test than the decade of explanations.
going to be interesting post-midterms to peak at some of these wildly under polled states like IN/ND/etc, won't really mean anything in the trump effect notion the only blind spot some pollsters have talked about much is a complete inability to get anyone 18-40 on the phone so the responses they do get are wildly over weighted but I also don't think there is a trump effect that doesn't show up in polling, at least any substantial portion
Voting for Trump is a way for some people to lash back to society for their own self-inflicted decisions to not be able to become socially mobile or marketable to more complex lines of work. Sorry, it's not Obama or your local politician's fault you didn't pay attention in HS or got fat and became sexually deprived.
I think it's sad that she felt the need to do that, but I think it's better to be proactive and just get it out there than let him control the message. Maybe it doesn't win her votes but I think it could be damage control for when Trump goes on the attack.
The thing I hate about it is that it doesn't matter. The criticism is that she used it to advance. Whether she's 1/64 or 1/1024 Cherokee doesn't make that any better, and a DNA test does nothing to change people's minds about whether she got a leg up for claiming it.
I don't think it makes any difference whatsoever to people who care whether she "used it to her advantage." They'd fault her even if Wilma Mankiller were her mother.
2020 is going to be awful the media will never stop treating bad faith arguments as genuine and going to diners in bum fuck to ask old whites about them
And FWIW, the "percentage" doesn't even matter to the tribes. It does nothing to "prove" one's tribal membership. She should've just told him to fuck off and that a DNA test wouldn't prove anything one way or another.
Not enough restaurants serving Leg of Baby or a vintage 1947 Blood of Virgin? Fucking ghoul deserves to starve to death or barely sustain on microwave dinners.
I thought I read somewhere in the thousandths of percent. Which makes sense for 6-10+ generations removed.
I could be wrong on that percentage though. But I think that’s what I saw. It’s probably closer to .02-.03%.
It was a potential barrier to Democratic enthusiasm for voting for her. If she was lying about her background to appropriate a minority identity for herself or advance her career, that would make some people that would vote for generic (D) not vote for her. By eliminating that argument for people predisposed to voting (D), it shores up her support. It may also nip away at the edges of Trump’s support among his voters that didn’t like him but just had to make sure HRC wasn’t president. I think that’s a much smaller effect than heading off the drop off in Democratic voters, though.
I'm sure there are plenty of great options at Country Buffet, Waffle House, or Cracker Barrel for Tucker.