This is a really sh!tty and dishonest article. Obviously any article that starts with a lengthy and screed full of ugly generalisations presented as fact ('Liberals want reality to conform to their heroic narratives about life.') is one that is rarely worth taking seriously, and given this I guess no one should be surprised that almost immediately we hit on that old classic of claiming that people who you disagree with/dislike have argued something other than that they actually have:
Has anyone actually argued that Trump primary voters are
especially well off? The usual argument (and one that happens to be backed up by, you know, election returns) is that the critical mass behind Trump's victory has been ordinary affluent Republicans living in the outer suburbs, not that Trump's supporters look like Trump. Acknowledging this is not the same as saying that Trump has not done very well amongst those few voters in depressed areas who have voted; it is just a matter of pointing out that you cannot win a Republican primary with those votes alone, and Trump
hasn't...
This is a genuinely bizarre statement and one that is not backed up or justified in any meaningful way at all. Instead we just get this strange ramble about the need to take age and other family related factors into account because the 'strain' on income caused by Wholesome Republican Family Values are apparently worse than other 'strains' on income (c.f. renting). This is blinkered ideological bilge.
What planet does this idiot live on? Not that this hypothetical 'typical' Sanders supporter is at all relevant to the sociology of Trump's primary support (and neither is he/she exactly typical of Sanders supporters. Ignoring the almost sweet ignorance of what life is like for young people these days, the assumption that Sanders has not attracted significant support from Americans with the sort of lifestyle this buffoon trumpets is
telling).
And note that, surprise surprise, we're seeing the questionable archetype presented earlier being presented as 'typical' of Sanders support (again, how is Sanders' support relevant to Trumps?) and extreme and unusual career paths being presented as typical. It also displays an amusing lack of knowledge as to wage earning patterns in working class households.
But Staten Island
is an affluent community. And not only is it
affluent but its employment structure leans heavily towards the managerial and the white collar, so we can't even pull the tired old trope of 'affluent workers' out of retirement. Of course Staten Island is also unfashionable and the people that live there speak with an accent, but this doesn't make it a working class community.*
Oh dear.
In fact the people he's talking about look affluent in the city they live in, at least once you ignore the people who work in financial servics etc (who don't interact in the normal economy anyway) but whatever. The fact that they are not
rich is irrelevant to the fact that they are affluent.
Abort Abort Abort
It's been obvious all along that this is not serious analysis. It is now clear that it is not serious journalism either.
This is hilarious. Shouldn't have to point out why.
And there follows further ranting that I can't be bothered to read.
*Actually part of Staten Island is working class but its also the part full of minorities.
