NYT op ed: "Liberals, You’re Not as Smart as You Think" ... Thoughts?

.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/12/opinion/sunday/liberals-youre-not-as-smart-as-you-think-you-are.html

Liberals, You’re Not as Smart as You Think
By Gerard Alexander

Mr. Alexander is a professor of political science at the University of Virginia.

May 12, 2018

I know many liberals, and two of them really are my best friends. Liberals make good movies and television shows. Their idealism has been an inspiration for me and many others. Many liberals are very smart. But they are not as smart, or as persuasive, as they think.

And a backlash against liberals — a backlash that most liberals don’t seem to realize they’re causing — is going to get President Trump re-elected.

Thoughts?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

SW-User

Well, that is true from individual to individual. Not collectively. There are very intelligent and smart liberals and at the same time very gullible and stupid ones :p

Same with conservatives. It goes from person to person

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@SW-User The article isn't so much about intelligence as it is about turning people off by their attitude.

Like Obama's infamous 2008 jab at Midwest rural voters:

That when they "get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them."

jackjjackson · M

I think there is a “we are smarter than you” perception. @beckyromero

SW-User

@beckyromero It doesn't really matter :p
All of this isn't really a big deal

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@LvChris

Look at the shift of rural Midwest counties towards Republicans since 1988.

It's not a mater of needing "save spaces." It's a matter of driving voters away by talking down to them. And losing election because of it.

(Yeah, I know. It's looks a bit weird with "blue" being Republican states, but apparently when Reagan was elected, networks used blue for GOP states.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@LvChris

If people feel that someone stating a truth is talking down to them, then they need to pull up their big boy pants and make some changes in their lives.

Who said that the people resenting such comments think that someone is stating a "truth."?

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@LvChris Some people may cite as truth that which can't be backed up by facts because it's entirely based on conjecture and opinion.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@LvChris

Obama said a true thing and, so outraged were the tender midwesterners, the people offended by such slanderous words did the exact thing he said they'd do.

Or, it can also be said, Obama felt he was going to lose many of those rural counties to Hillary anyway and thus insulted those voters so that his loss of such counties could be explained in the way you are doing so, to try to make up something as fact when it is just opinion.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

beckyromero · 36-40, F

For anyone reading this, here are the FACTS for reference:

In April 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama, made these remarks to a roomful of wealthy San Francisco supporters, about white, working-class voters in Pennsylvania. Unknown to Obama, his remarks were tape-recorded by Huffington Post journalist.

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate, and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

His remarks were taken to be understood as not just about white, working-class voters in western Pennsylvania but in the Midwest generally. At the time, Obama was coming off a number of big wins that gave him a strong lead in delegates. But the primary calendar that favored him early on (a number of open primaries and caucuses) was now favoring Hillary Clinton.

The Pennsylvania primary is a closed primary, only registered Democrats can vote in it. Clinton would win it, 55-45%.

Obama would win the state in the general elections both in 2008 and 2012. In 2016, Trump flipped the state, as well as Michigan and Wisconsin, the first time all three states voted Republican since 1984.

But Democrats have been losing ground in the Midwest long before Obama ran for president.

jackjjackson · M

Sounds like a vase of “smartest person in the room” syndrome that would would think President Obama was too smart to fall victim to. @beckyromero @SW-User

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@jackjjackson Exactly. An astute of a politician as Obama, even back then, wouldn't have made such remarks without assuming they'd at least be leaked, if not recorded.

Obama knew he wasn't going to win the closed Pennsylvania primary. Which is why I believe he said it to explain his eventually loss.

Hillary was winning a majority of votes in closed primaries. In fact, after the primary season was over, she won a majority of votes in all primaries and caucuses. But, according to the rules of the game (and that's how they campaigned and allocated resources), Obama won the nomination.

jackjjackson · M

Absolutely true and that’s how the president won the general in 2016 - according to the rules @beckyromero

SW-User

@jackjjackson I really love that quote a lot