An artist named Jayne Riew observed that “In the days after the election, people around me struggled to make sense of what had happened. Perhaps the biggest surprise was the female vote. Among women who cast ballots, 42% were with him, not with her. Most of the women and mothers I knew were shocked or angry that other women and mothers could choose Trump over Clinton.” The common assumption was that Trump voters must be “people who haven’t seen the world,” “resentful of our success,” “unskilled and no-tech,” “old and behind the times,” “white people who are afraid,” etc etc.
She notes that “to reach 42%, Trump had to have drawn in women who didn’t fit the stereotype,” and set out to do some actual research. The resulting website, She’s With Him, is a photo essay based on interviews with 7 female Trump voters. Worth taking a look.
Riew’s own website is here.
“Who are the women who voted for Donald Trump?
Many don’t fit the stereotype, the uneducated white working class.”
Sigh. The educated, open-minded, cosmopolitan elite of contemporary America are such ignorant bigoted morons.
What Brian said.
It’s virtue signaling, all the way down.
It’s funny. I keep meeting people, especially women, who are Trump supporters and some are not what I would expect. Our real estate agent. She is single, 60, a doctor’s ex-wife. She is an artist and feminist. I expected TDS and said nothing. She is a big fan and sends us stuff about him and the impeachment drama.
Half my kids are anti-Trump and cannot explain why. I have a daughter who is a lawyer and FBI agent. In 2016, she told me that she would not vote for Hillary, so I had some hope of an open mind even though I know she leans left. She was visiting over Veterans Day and an image of Schiff came on the TV. I made some comment about Schiff. She then popped out with, “I hate how Trump is so incompetent! I responded with,” Does 3% unemployment and 28,000 Dow Jones matter at all?” She said it didn’t. I did not pursue it. I did think “Incompetent” was an odd description but chose not to pursue it.
I like what one woman said about Yale – that they only talk with like-minded people. And claim to be open minded. That interview alone is worth the whole read.
Very articulate women.
My mother who has a pretty sharp mind detests Trump but voted for him last time and I suspect will vote for him this time. Says that he talks too much, with which I can’t disagree.
But she approves of his policies.
“The educated, open-minded, cosmopolitan elite of contemporary America are such ignorant bigoted morons.”
While that is often true, give some credit to the woman who created the website for going out and meeting some real people instead of relying on the stereotypes.
JaimeRoberto…indeed, much credit to her!
(I like her photography, too)
I see that she is married to Jonathan Haidt and believes in free-range parenting:
http://www.freerangekids.com/max-haidt-9-year-old-son-of-jon-coddling-of-american-mind-haidt-pipes-up/
An artist named Jayne Riew observed that “In the days after the election, people around me struggled to make sense of what had happened. Perhaps the biggest surprise was the female vote. Among women who cast ballots, 42% were with him, not with her.
From exit polls, we find out that women voted thusly for Trump
white women 52%
black women 4%
latina women 25%
others 31%
Black males voted 13% for Trump.
As a Spanish speaker, I found it amusing that the CNN poll listed “latino women.” Should be “latina” if referring to women. At least in Spanish. :)
Also note that while Jayne Riew was surprised that females would vote for Trump, she found at least one woman who was disgusted by Hillary’s response to Bill’s adultery.
Once again, we see evidence that elite colleges and universities are ideological bubbles. A recent article on the Gibson’s Bakery/Oberlin lawsuit quoted an Oberlin student, upset at Trump’s election, who didn’t know anyone who had voted for Trump. Oberlin is located in Lorain County, which narrowly voted for Trump.
https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls
Gringo…”Also note that while Jayne Riew was surprised that females would vote for Trump”
I’m not sure if SHE was surprised, or she is referring to the surprise of the circle of people she is referring to.
re CNN and proper Spanish usage: that’s the beauty of “wokeness”…you don’t actually have to go to the trouble of learning or knowing anything, just exhibit the proper attitudes!
There was an article I read — ages ago, so I cannot recollect where I read it — which outlined that one of Trump’s most early and dedicated supporters were a coterie of middle-aged women who knew him through real estate circles. They knew him as an uber-dedicated, insanely-hard-working professional, who stayed up late and read property analysis for fun. And they backed him a 110% when he decided to run for the presidency.
In all the time that the general public has known of him – we know that he likes to date attractive model-type women, but there are no stories about him sexually-harassing women who worked in his various organizations. He’s been in the public eye since … the early 1980ies? The takeaway for me is that he knew damn well (ahem) not to dip his pen in company ink. What he did in his personal social life was entirely separated from his business conduct.
And all of his kids are functional and well-adjusted adults. Which kind of argues that he was a good parent, or at least had the wit and interest to hire good parent-subs.
It amazes me that many people can’t grasp that, perhaps many people voted for Trump simply because Hillary was so awful.
Frequently in life, your choices are not between bad and good, but between bad and worse.
“All the Democrats have to do is not act crazy, however…..” — Instapundit
It amazes me that many people can’t grasp that, perhaps many people voted for Trump simply because Hillary was so awful.
I think we are going to have a replay after a brokered D convention. The present Democrat lineup is weak.
Biden is senile, Warren scares the donors, Bernie is an old commie, Buttplug is a kid.
They will go to the convention in the middle of Durham’s indictments. Ironically, Hillary may be the only one not in legal trouble.
I’m still not sure impeachment will pass the House as it seems to be a suicide plot.
Pelosi claimed to be the force behind the trade deal, which is silly but understandable.
She needs something.
David Foster, point taken that the author was not necessarily surprised that females would vote for Trump. Another commenter informed us that she is married to Jonathan Haidt. I doubt that Jonathan Haidt would have married someone who couldn’t think for herself.
It was a refreshing read. Many liberals – yet I stress, not all – will be unaffected even if they see it because they do not so much think about issues as read the social cues around them. “It’s only seven women,” they will say to themselves, and they can look away because none of them are exactly like them. Most of the people, especially women, they associate with will provide no challenge to their beliefs. It is tribal, not intellectual, and many people want more than anything to be accepted by their aspirational tribe.
I don’t believe it is accidental how many of these women are immigrants.
Go through the pictures and see who is hiding. It’s fascinating how many and who made sure that they would not be identifiable by their pictures and thus not subject to retribution by the left.
I think that there’s an argument to be made here that there are way too many people in the electorate who vote on appearance, not substance. Every one of the “anti-Trump” people I know personally seem to think that he’s Satan incarnate–But, you ask them to articulate actual reasons for that, or things he’s done, it all evaporates into a fog of “I don’t like him or the way he talks/acts…”. There’s no substance there, whatsoever.
And, to be blunt, most of these people are women. Which ties into another long-observed feature of the female electorate: A clear majority of the women I’ve discussed politics with, over the years, have utterly failed to base anything at all on concrete reality or performance by the politician. It’s all “looks”: “I don’t like the way he/she looks…” “I don’t like the way they talk…” “I don’t trust them because they dress badly…”. Very few of the women I’ve ever talked politics with evaluate things in terms of performance or policy; it’s all appearances, all the time. A well turned-out jackass gets more votes than a frumpy toad, regardless of competence or performance.
It even extends to other women politicians–I heard more than a few women comment, back during the Dixie Lee Ray governorship here in Washington State, that they could not vote for her because of how badly she dressed herself, and how she presented herself in public. Which played a huge role in her losing her second election as governor–She didn’t even win the primary.
Can’t prove it, in objective terms, but I hold the opinion that within the constrains of our culture, general female suffrage has led to a huge distortion in the success or failure of our representative democracy. JFK, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama won their many and sundry elections mostly on the back of the female vote, and I strongly suspect that they’d have never had a chance in an environment where the majority of the voters didn’t base their choices on appearance alone.
WSJ recently had an article about increasing education requirements in manufacturing…I have some problems with the article, and especially with the headline, but that’s another discussion…anyhow, the comments section was reasonably decent, as such things go…except for this:
“Trump voters still don’t get it. Uneducated arrogance with hatred of any one with college degree or foreign accent is not going to advance you in life.
Time to bury this sickness.”
The level of arrogance and outright hate among the Progs is truly frightening. And, as Sarah Hoyt nicely phrased it, these people project more then an iMax.
WSJ comment via David Foster:
AVI observation on the Jayne Riew article about the 7 female Trump supporters:
Something does not compute.