When one considers the factors that actually get people out into the streets like in Sri Lanka, they're essentially only economic. People have a comparatively much higher tolerance threshold for sociocultural rot; but if they're economically suffering, their tolerance quickly wears thin, a la the Weimar.
Now, who is least likely to be economically suffering of the mentioned groups? I'd wager that 'Graduate Degree' greatest correlates with higher living standards. These are the people whose earnings are high enough that they can afford to take a hit, and thus can afford to preserve their Left or Far-Left beliefs in the unfortunately common event that they harbour them. But the '19-29' and 'No College' groups are, conversely, on the frontlines of the economic troubles.
I think the persisting black support is the one that raises questions, because that clearly doesn't correlate with higher living standards. In their case, however, I'd wager that it is because they are far greater beneficiaries of the current order of things compared to the other groups. The system is geared towards them—especially its deep opposition to the various structural, institutional -isms and -phobias of which they believe themselves to be victims—in a way that it simply isn't for the other groups. Notice that ageism (a term many probably haven't even heard of, much unlike 'racism') and discrimination against the less educated aren't considered anywhere near the issue that 'racism' is.
You're talking about people that have spent their entire lives to date being trained that the only thing wrong with the globalist agenda is that the US isn't implementing it fast enough, both domestically and in terms of compelling the US's friends and neighbours to do so themselves.
What I have observed is that academia has an enormous bubble. It's hard for the physics teachers to talk to the chemistry teachers, let alone the Economics proffs talking to the Physics proffs. They don't know what the other is doing for the most part. They live in their offices, go to school bought houses, and have insurance and everything else taken care of. In their minds, this is socialism. They don't see the garbageman, the janitor, and other personnel who don't have this at the school.
At no point do they think the stores they go to, the restaurants they attend, or any form of entertainment they enjoy doesn't have some form of their idea of socialism.
Marketing. Polls are fake and this is a nice way for the NYT to turn to its dumber readers and say “you aren’t one of those dumb people that disapprove of Biden, are you?”
55 of people with graduate degree approve of biden? How and why?
Academia today is nothing but woke indoctrination centers.
The longer you are in academia such as going to grad school, the higher the chance you become a woke npc.
When one considers the factors that actually get people out into the streets like in Sri Lanka, they're essentially only economic. People have a comparatively much higher tolerance threshold for sociocultural rot; but if they're economically suffering, their tolerance quickly wears thin, a la the Weimar.
Now, who is least likely to be economically suffering of the mentioned groups? I'd wager that 'Graduate Degree' greatest correlates with higher living standards. These are the people whose earnings are high enough that they can afford to take a hit, and thus can afford to preserve their Left or Far-Left beliefs in the unfortunately common event that they harbour them. But the '19-29' and 'No College' groups are, conversely, on the frontlines of the economic troubles.
I think the persisting black support is the one that raises questions, because that clearly doesn't correlate with higher living standards. In their case, however, I'd wager that it is because they are far greater beneficiaries of the current order of things compared to the other groups. The system is geared towards them—especially its deep opposition to the various structural, institutional -isms and -phobias of which they believe themselves to be victims—in a way that it simply isn't for the other groups. Notice that ageism (a term many probably haven't even heard of, much unlike 'racism') and discrimination against the less educated aren't considered anywhere near the issue that 'racism' is.
You're talking about people that have spent their entire lives to date being trained that the only thing wrong with the globalist agenda is that the US isn't implementing it fast enough, both domestically and in terms of compelling the US's friends and neighbours to do so themselves.
What I have observed is that academia has an enormous bubble. It's hard for the physics teachers to talk to the chemistry teachers, let alone the Economics proffs talking to the Physics proffs. They don't know what the other is doing for the most part. They live in their offices, go to school bought houses, and have insurance and everything else taken care of. In their minds, this is socialism. They don't see the garbageman, the janitor, and other personnel who don't have this at the school.
At no point do they think the stores they go to, the restaurants they attend, or any form of entertainment they enjoy doesn't have some form of their idea of socialism.
Marketing. Polls are fake and this is a nice way for the NYT to turn to its dumber readers and say “you aren’t one of those dumb people that disapprove of Biden, are you?”
They think the NYT is for 'smart people' and that by reading it, they're 'smart', and by echoing every opinion that it spreads they are 'smarter'.
That's the problem.