I was in a doctor’s office in Barrington IL today. Also seated there were two men, late ’50s or early ’60s. Their clothes were casual but expensive looking, like you see on a country club golf course. (I used to carry bags, in High School). They began talking about politics, One asked the other who he favored in the Presidential race. The second answered, “I don’t know, whoever is the Republican nominee”. The first man asked the second if he had seen some election special on Fox News. The second said, “No, like I said, whoever is the Republican nominee. I’ll tell you one thing, it won’t be Sanders. That guy would raise our taxes!” The second agreed that taxes were the most important issue and “Democrats just want to raise taxes.” Neither mentioned Clinton, neither positively nor negatively. The only choices for them were Sanders or any Republican and it definitely wouldn’t be Sanders.
So, what I got out of this is a rebuttal of the theory that Republicans would desert in hordes if Trump were the nominee. These were not know-nothing Tea Party blue collar whites. These were not neo-Confederate Bundy clones. These were affluent suburban white guys, moderately or very rich, it’s hard to tell. The only issue of any importance was taxes, despite the fact that they obviously had the money to pay them. They just had no interest in anything but money.
For reference the wiki page says “The racial makeup of the village was 96.16% White, 0.62% African American, 0.13% Native American, 2.00% Asian, 0.01% Pacific Islander, 0.31% from other races, and 0.77% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 2.33% of the population. The median income for a household in the village was $83,085, and the median income for a family was $102,120. Males had a median income of $80,232 versus $38,795 for females. The per capita income for the village was $43,942.” Goldman-Sachs CEO and US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson attended Barrington High School and apparently still has a house (I’ll bet it’s an estate) there.
They are “no nothing, well paid white guys.”
My anecdote from long ago, after resigning my position and on the way out the door, I said to one of those “no nothing, decently paid white guys,” (not country club well paid, but enough business schmoozing with golf included), “They don’t pay you enough to be a Republican.”
Love it! Good shot!
Well, from your anecdote, at least one of them wasn’t paying attention to the process. That could change once the primaries are over.
I got the impression that guy #1 was interested but would vote for the nominee no matter who, like many (most?) here. Guy #2 didn’t care, he was going to vote (R) no matter what. Maybe he might wake up and be torn like Shylock, “Oh my daughter! Oh my ducats!”, by I’ll bet real money he would wind up going for the ducats. Those rich people would pick a penny out of a manure pile with their teeth. No Honor. No Honor at all.
“Those rich people would pick a penny out of a manure pile with their teeth.”
Yes, remember this?
There is a decent enough reason to check out guys like this early in the primary season. Not because they will ever vote for a Democrat. But for their authentic, early impressions of possible Democratic nominees. Doesn’t work for a candidate like Clinton; she’s been on the national stage for too long for them not to have formed opinions about her and therefore, they’re seeing her through very old and hardened lenses.
Where I stumbled on this was mid-summer 2007. A sixtyish, white male of upper middle-class means who follows politics casually and always votes Republican. He had probably heard of Obama but knew nothing about him when one of the network news shows presented a minute or so profile of him. GOP guy watches network news; so for that minute he was a captive audience. GOP guy’s response, “He seems like an interesting guy.” The key for me was that he didn’t have a negative visceral response. It was neutral to ever so slightly positive. He’s since gone on to adopt a standard GOP anti-Obama position because those guys exchange gobs of disgusting anti-DEM email crap, and those guys are unbelievably conformist to their tribe. Which makes them exceedingly dull and often stupid sounding to outsiders of a liberal persuasion.
They aren’t gut impression voters like so many because they’re smart and educated — they look for the big “R” next to the name of the person they vote for. However, their initial and spontaneous responses before they find that “R” are a wormholes into what gut voters will find acceptable or not.
I haven’t had such an observational opportunity in this election cycle, but I have heard anecdotal reports that as a person, Sanders doesn’t raise alarm bells in GOP guys before they’ve been subjected to media and political propaganda. My read of those reports is that the response is more positive to Sanders than it was to Obama.
Well, Sanders isn’t black. Maybe his Jewish background will turn out to be a shocker to such ‘guys’. What do the ‘gals’ think?
My point had nothing to do with the ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or even political party affiliation. All that does come into play in a general election, but it’s all also cognitive. Conscious or easy to articulate within pre-existing frames of reference.
It’s closer to an innate quality of all individuals to attract or repel others in a brief (even split second brief) one-on-one interaction. It’s much more difficult for a politician that doesn’t attract on first sight.
My remark was just a throwaway. I wasn’t characterizing your point in any way. ‘Guys’ sparked ‘gals’ in my mind. The existing fames of reference depend on gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity and whatever else can be added to the list. I have a general impression that anecdotal impressions here, there and elsewhere derive more from men than women, for whatever that’s worth. This is not based on a scientific, methodically tried and tested poll.
I have a general impression that anecdotal impressions here, there and elsewhere derive more from men than women,
You may be right. I’m not sure if women are less likely to have a snap or spontaneous response of like/don’t like or if they are less likely to say so in the moment. Perhaps it’s both. Could be that women are innately less quick to judge or we’ve been taught not to judge quickly. Women are also more likely to doubt their impressions and judgments.
Got to agree that being another old white guy is not as bad for them as being a younger black guy. But it’s not the whole story, cf Herman Cain, Condi Rice, Colin Powell.
I occasionally visit hotair.com to see what is happenning over there. “Allahpundit” is pretty cogent up to a point, but the comment streams show the id directly. In any case, when Sanders is mentioned but not immediately labelled “damned Socialist”, there is the exact sense you describe. That of a neutral to (slight) OKness or even admiration (Speaking his mind, being consistent, not corrupt, somehow AUTHENTIC, etc.) These are not necessarily left/right political values as much as they are basic functional human values. Whatever else is associated with the gypper, “Character Counts” is looming ever larger as the slogan for this year!