0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
This person does not give the impression of someone who understands statistics.
his article is totally stupid and wrong. I put the numbers into Excel and find that Clinton won 26% of white people, while Trump won 40% of them (us.) Trumps non-white vote totals 6% while Clinton's was 26%. Overall, she won 48% to his 46%. 67% of the voters in his sample are white and 28% are not. 6% of non-white people voted for Trump. That's the bottom line.
Leaving aside that I don't understand the article's mathematical approach, and I'm going to go ahead and trust the dozen other articles from reputable sources I've read on this topic -- still talking about who voted for who and why distracts from the real issue at play. Which is the seriousness and immeasurable impact of voter suppression tactics carried out by Republicans to effectively disenfranchise people of color. You can obsess over statistics all you want, but of ALL groups to 'blame,' doing so with people of color completely undermines just how difficult it is for the so many to even exercise their vote -- and its disrespectful to those that may technically be eligible, but are otherwise exhausted/scared/sincerely misled by attacks on their right to vote. If you are passionate about everyone exercising their right to vote, why not focus on making it easy and fair for everyone to do so in the first place?
I struggled to figure out if this was meant to be satirical.
Am I wrong to think that lumping white women with people of color is super misguided at best, and potentially misleading - to advance a dubious argument? And then using theoretical examples that imply large numbers of people of color voted for Trump - which simply ain't so? This seems sloppy to me, but I must be missing something.
Anything posted to medium is bullshit that couldn't get published anywhere else. Just treat it like all the fake new sites.
