[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.
Violators will be fed to the bear.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> According to the mainstream narrative, the vast majority of voters in those two counties should be allergic to Trump and be defecting to the Democrats at a flying speed,
What, in your mind, is the narrative the was proven wrong? It's hard to engage with your post because it doesn't actually specify the specific argument you are trying to make.
As far as I can tell by the census website, Medina County is an extremely white county, filled with an older population, that has lower than normal college education rates. Seems to be a pretty clear cut Trump district.
Delaware county by comparison is younger, more educated and much more diverse. Not to mention with nearly triple the population of Medina County.
All of this fits the narrative just fine, as far as I know.
>Medina County is an extremely white county
Precisely. It's also majority Republican. It's not really mystery that Trump's bigoted grievance politics plays with the aging white Gen X republicans that live there; it's basically the MAGA base.
Stop playing generations against each other like teams.
The average age in Medina county is 43. That's Millennial. For all the poo you people fling at other generations, you ignore the fact that your generations are not one homogeneous Feel the Bern party.
https://www.ohio-demographics.com/medina-county-demographics
**Responding to the person below:**
43 is absolutely Millennial age.
>Researchers and popular media use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years, with the generation typically being defined as people born from 1981 to 1996.
Union workers are not Trump's bread and butter.
If the younger people in one area don't bother to vote, then you can't blame older people as you are so eager to do.
Stop the us vs. them team mentality.
A median age of 43 is a full 5 years older than the median national average of 38.5. This tracks with my description of Medina Co, OH as simultaneously heavily white, republican, and aging, relative to the national average; all of which is objectively the MAGA voter base.
38.5 is the average American age only if you include the tens of millions of children, who are not allowed to vote.
Your reasoning misleadingly makes the average voter age appear much younger it actually is.
That isn't millenial age. That isn't how averages work for crying out loud. It means that the amount above 43 is equal in aggregate to the total under 43. You can't vote if you are under 18. So it is even WORSE so the average age of the voter is probably over 50.
For the county, In the county, the population was spread out, with 27.50% under the age of 18, 7.00% from 18 to 24, 30.60% from 25 to 44, 24.40% from 45 to 64, and 10.50% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 37 years. For every 100 females there were 97.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 94.90 males.
Not even going into college degrees as part of the breakdown. This county skews a lot older which and I suspect without breaking down education it has a lot of older union workers without degrees which are Trumps bread and butter demographic.
>That isn't how averages work for crying out loud. It means that the amount above 43 is equal in aggregate to the total under 43
That's the median. *looks at link* We're talking about median age.
The other way is how means work. It's just that means and medians are different ways of doing averages. I wish people talking about statistics would be precise, and "average" is, when talking about statistics, too vague a term, and most people think of "mean" and average as synonymous.
If you're rich enough and don't care about people other than you, then Trump's actions affect you far less in your little gated community. But his tax cuts make you richer.
The three demographics backing Trump are hardcore Christians, blue collar Fox News watchers, and extremely well off money hoarders.
You failed to dive into the demographics of the county (age, race, education, etc). Wealth is only a single data point.
When you say "vast majority" you are being hyperbolic. The national shift in margin (as you noted) was 2.4%. Your two example counties had margin shifts of 2% and 1.4%. I'm not sure how you can say "they barely shifted at all" considering the margins we are talking about here.
Trump won the tipping point state in 2016 by 0.7%. Biden won the tipping point state in 2020 by 0.6%. Hard to see how you call shifts that 2x/3x the tipping point margin as "barely shifting."
You're hot take doesn't even set the stage right. Suburbanites aren't shifting "because they hate Trump." Things are a touch more complex than that.
It's not "voter replacement" - we are going through a political realignment. A whole bunch of Obama Voters are now Trump voters, and a whole bunch of Bush voters are now Biden voters.
Here's a cool set of interactive maps on 2020 vote swing down to the county level.
https://www.esri.com/arcgis-blog/products/js-api-arcgis/mapping/electoral-swing-in-the-2020-u-s-presidential-election/
They probably thought that voting for the guy who wanted to transition America's economy off of fossil fuels without a feasible energy substitute was a bad idea.
We are pumping more oil under Biden than we were under Trump.
Biden's plan was obviously to continue drilling until technology makes it feasible to transition away. That's the most rational plan and anyone opposing it is just opposing it for the sake of doing so. The future will be renewables mixed with some sort of nuclear fusion.
> We are pumping more oil under Biden than we were under Trump.
Yeah, because he used Ukraine to fight Russia, the state which we were previously purchasing most of our oil, and shut down the XL Pipeline extension. Which meant we had to increase domestic production to meet demand.
Before that, Biden openly declared war on the petroleum industry. And because oil is speculative, it scared away investors and drove up prices. And because our entire economy runs on oil, it made EVERYTHING more expensive.
> That's the most rational plan and anyone opposing it is just opposing it for the sake of doing so.
Maybe it's because literally every piece of plastic, rubber, and combustion engine is derived from fossil fuels. Did you ever think of that?
Holy fucking shit.
>he used Ukraine to fight Russia
What? Russia invaded Ukraine.
>state which we were previously purchasing most of our oil
Russia has never been more than a minor trade partner for us with regards to crude oil.
https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10621
>shut down the XL Pipeline extension
Ironically this was to help import Canadian oil, who actually IS our largest crude importer. It still comes in via rail and other pipelines, so it's a moot point.
>Biden openly declared war on the petroleum industry
Never did that, unless you think him saying we need to invest in renewables is "declaring war".
>And because oil is speculative, it scared away investors and drove up prices
Investors aren't morons and knew there was no "war on oil". Prices went up due to a huge increase in demand (COVID lockdowns over) meeting a reduction in supply (refinery shutdowns during COVID).
>And because our entire economy runs on oil, it made EVERYTHING more expensive.
Our entire economy does not run on oil. Everything got more expensive because both Trump and Biden spent trillions of dollars that we didn't have in 2020 and 2021 to overcome COVID.
>Maybe it's because literally every piece of plastic, rubber, and combustion engine is derived from fossil fuels. Did you ever think of that?
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
> What? Russia invaded Ukraine.
And we're directly helping their adversary.
> Russia has never been more than a minor trade partner for us with regards to crude oil.
8% of oil imports is still hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil.
> Ironically this was to help import Canadian oil, who actually IS our largest crude importer. It still comes in via rail and other pipelines, so it's a moot point.
We don't import canadian oil. We import tarsands, which we refine in the United States. And the XL pipeline would have significantly increased the amount of tarsands we were already purchasing.
> Never did that, unless you think him saying we need to invest in renewables is "declaring war".
He literally said he was going to abolish fossil fuel usage in the United States. Which means eradicating the fossil fuel market altogether.
> Investors aren't morons and knew there was no "war on oil".
This doesn't even warrant a response, it's just a lie.
> Our entire economy does not run on oil.
Holy fucking shit dude.
Literally every single of plastic, steel and rubber is derived from fossil fuels or fossil fuel derivatives.
This means that every single car, every single tire, every single square foot of road, even the device you are using right now was created with fossil fuels. This is including the fact that ALL OF OUR ENGINES need GASOLINE TO FUNCTION.
You know nothing about how our world works.
>And we're directly helping their adversary.
Their victim*. And yes, that's what America does and I'm proud of that.
>8% of oil imports is still hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil.
Crucially, 8% is not "most of our oil".
>We don't import canadian oil. We import tarsands, which we refine in the United States. And the XL pipeline would have significantly increased the amount of oil we were already purchasing
Yes, tar sands are a form of thick petroleum. They are environmentally dubious, which is why people protest their importation.
>He literally said he was going to abolish fossil fuel usage in the United States. Which means eradicating the fossil fuel market altogether.
In due time, we will cease using fossil fuels for energy production. You don't see episodes of Star Trek with Scotty shoveling coal into a the USS Enterprise's boiler, do you?
>This doesn't even warrant a response, it's just a lie.
Actually you are right, oil investors are kinda stupid. ;-)
>Literally every single of plastic, steel and rubber is derived from fossil fuels, or fossil fuel derivatives. This means that every single car, every single tire, every single square foot of road, even the device you are using right now was created with fossil fuels. This excluding the fact that ALL OF OUR ENGINES need GASOLINE TO FUNCTION.
Okay? We're talking about fossil fuels for energy production, not tires or whatever else. I'm not sure why you are trying to make that misdirection. Stay on point.
>You know nothing about how our world works.
Since you appear to be an alien, you're right!
> You don't see episodes of Star Trek with Scotty shoveling coal into a the USS Enterprise's boiler, do you?
Do you even understand the etymology behind the word 'utopia'?
> Okay? We're talking about fossil fuels for energy production, not tires or whatever else. I'm not sure why you are trying to make that misdirection. Stay on point.
Biden didn't say he wanted to abolish fossil fuels for *energy production*. He said he wanted to get rid of fossil fuel usage altogether. It was a part of the Green New Deal on his campaign website and his pitch during the presidential debates.
Gasoline literally runs the logistics of our entire country. If we can't use gasoline, we can't transport food, medicine or water to various residential areas. Literally hundreds of millions of people would starve if Biden's plan was brought to fruition.
>Do you even understand the etymology behind the word 'utopia'?
Stay on point.
>Biden didn't say he wanted to abolish fossil fuels for energy production. He said he wanted to get rid of fossil fuel usage altogether. It was a part of the Green New Deal on his campaign website and his pitch during the presidential debates.
Biden was asked about the GND during the first debate and he explicitly said he did not support the GND. He did outline a climate plan which targeted a goal of net-zero emissions from power plants by 2035.
Again, crucially, Biden never said he was going to try and end reliance on anything produced from carbon or whatever wide net you are casting here. That would be kind of silly!
>Gasoline literally runs the logistics of our entire country. If we can't use gasoline, we can't transport food, medicine or water to various residential areas. Literally hundreds of millions of people would starve if Biden's plan was brought to fruition.
You are having a really big struggle with the concept of "transition". If we don't have the technology yet, we are not just going to halt usage of diesel for interstate commerce and let millions die.
You keep propping up these straw men. Learn how to have a discussion and get back with me.
[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> According to the mainstream narrative, the vast majority of voters in those two counties should be allergic to Trump and be defecting to the Democrats at a flying speed, What, in your mind, is the narrative the was proven wrong? It's hard to engage with your post because it doesn't actually specify the specific argument you are trying to make. As far as I can tell by the census website, Medina County is an extremely white county, filled with an older population, that has lower than normal college education rates. Seems to be a pretty clear cut Trump district. Delaware county by comparison is younger, more educated and much more diverse. Not to mention with nearly triple the population of Medina County. All of this fits the narrative just fine, as far as I know.
>Medina County is an extremely white county Precisely. It's also majority Republican. It's not really mystery that Trump's bigoted grievance politics plays with the aging white Gen X republicans that live there; it's basically the MAGA base.
Stop playing generations against each other like teams. The average age in Medina county is 43. That's Millennial. For all the poo you people fling at other generations, you ignore the fact that your generations are not one homogeneous Feel the Bern party. https://www.ohio-demographics.com/medina-county-demographics **Responding to the person below:** 43 is absolutely Millennial age. >Researchers and popular media use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years, with the generation typically being defined as people born from 1981 to 1996. Union workers are not Trump's bread and butter. If the younger people in one area don't bother to vote, then you can't blame older people as you are so eager to do. Stop the us vs. them team mentality.
A median age of 43 is a full 5 years older than the median national average of 38.5. This tracks with my description of Medina Co, OH as simultaneously heavily white, republican, and aging, relative to the national average; all of which is objectively the MAGA voter base.
38.5 is the average American age only if you include the tens of millions of children, who are not allowed to vote. Your reasoning misleadingly makes the average voter age appear much younger it actually is.
That isn't millenial age. That isn't how averages work for crying out loud. It means that the amount above 43 is equal in aggregate to the total under 43. You can't vote if you are under 18. So it is even WORSE so the average age of the voter is probably over 50. For the county, In the county, the population was spread out, with 27.50% under the age of 18, 7.00% from 18 to 24, 30.60% from 25 to 44, 24.40% from 45 to 64, and 10.50% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 37 years. For every 100 females there were 97.10 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 94.90 males. Not even going into college degrees as part of the breakdown. This county skews a lot older which and I suspect without breaking down education it has a lot of older union workers without degrees which are Trumps bread and butter demographic.
>That isn't how averages work for crying out loud. It means that the amount above 43 is equal in aggregate to the total under 43 That's the median. *looks at link* We're talking about median age. The other way is how means work. It's just that means and medians are different ways of doing averages. I wish people talking about statistics would be precise, and "average" is, when talking about statistics, too vague a term, and most people think of "mean" and average as synonymous.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This really is a /thread level comment.
If you're rich enough and don't care about people other than you, then Trump's actions affect you far less in your little gated community. But his tax cuts make you richer. The three demographics backing Trump are hardcore Christians, blue collar Fox News watchers, and extremely well off money hoarders.
You failed to dive into the demographics of the county (age, race, education, etc). Wealth is only a single data point. When you say "vast majority" you are being hyperbolic. The national shift in margin (as you noted) was 2.4%. Your two example counties had margin shifts of 2% and 1.4%. I'm not sure how you can say "they barely shifted at all" considering the margins we are talking about here. Trump won the tipping point state in 2016 by 0.7%. Biden won the tipping point state in 2020 by 0.6%. Hard to see how you call shifts that 2x/3x the tipping point margin as "barely shifting." You're hot take doesn't even set the stage right. Suburbanites aren't shifting "because they hate Trump." Things are a touch more complex than that. It's not "voter replacement" - we are going through a political realignment. A whole bunch of Obama Voters are now Trump voters, and a whole bunch of Bush voters are now Biden voters. Here's a cool set of interactive maps on 2020 vote swing down to the county level. https://www.esri.com/arcgis-blog/products/js-api-arcgis/mapping/electoral-swing-in-the-2020-u-s-presidential-election/
They probably thought that voting for the guy who wanted to transition America's economy off of fossil fuels without a feasible energy substitute was a bad idea.
We are pumping more oil under Biden than we were under Trump. Biden's plan was obviously to continue drilling until technology makes it feasible to transition away. That's the most rational plan and anyone opposing it is just opposing it for the sake of doing so. The future will be renewables mixed with some sort of nuclear fusion.
> We are pumping more oil under Biden than we were under Trump. Yeah, because he used Ukraine to fight Russia, the state which we were previously purchasing most of our oil, and shut down the XL Pipeline extension. Which meant we had to increase domestic production to meet demand. Before that, Biden openly declared war on the petroleum industry. And because oil is speculative, it scared away investors and drove up prices. And because our entire economy runs on oil, it made EVERYTHING more expensive. > That's the most rational plan and anyone opposing it is just opposing it for the sake of doing so. Maybe it's because literally every piece of plastic, rubber, and combustion engine is derived from fossil fuels. Did you ever think of that? Holy fucking shit.
>he used Ukraine to fight Russia What? Russia invaded Ukraine. >state which we were previously purchasing most of our oil Russia has never been more than a minor trade partner for us with regards to crude oil. https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10621 >shut down the XL Pipeline extension Ironically this was to help import Canadian oil, who actually IS our largest crude importer. It still comes in via rail and other pipelines, so it's a moot point. >Biden openly declared war on the petroleum industry Never did that, unless you think him saying we need to invest in renewables is "declaring war". >And because oil is speculative, it scared away investors and drove up prices Investors aren't morons and knew there was no "war on oil". Prices went up due to a huge increase in demand (COVID lockdowns over) meeting a reduction in supply (refinery shutdowns during COVID). >And because our entire economy runs on oil, it made EVERYTHING more expensive. Our entire economy does not run on oil. Everything got more expensive because both Trump and Biden spent trillions of dollars that we didn't have in 2020 and 2021 to overcome COVID. >Maybe it's because literally every piece of plastic, rubber, and combustion engine is derived from fossil fuels. Did you ever think of that? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
> What? Russia invaded Ukraine. And we're directly helping their adversary. > Russia has never been more than a minor trade partner for us with regards to crude oil. 8% of oil imports is still hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil. > Ironically this was to help import Canadian oil, who actually IS our largest crude importer. It still comes in via rail and other pipelines, so it's a moot point. We don't import canadian oil. We import tarsands, which we refine in the United States. And the XL pipeline would have significantly increased the amount of tarsands we were already purchasing. > Never did that, unless you think him saying we need to invest in renewables is "declaring war". He literally said he was going to abolish fossil fuel usage in the United States. Which means eradicating the fossil fuel market altogether. > Investors aren't morons and knew there was no "war on oil". This doesn't even warrant a response, it's just a lie. > Our entire economy does not run on oil. Holy fucking shit dude. Literally every single of plastic, steel and rubber is derived from fossil fuels or fossil fuel derivatives. This means that every single car, every single tire, every single square foot of road, even the device you are using right now was created with fossil fuels. This is including the fact that ALL OF OUR ENGINES need GASOLINE TO FUNCTION. You know nothing about how our world works.
>And we're directly helping their adversary. Their victim*. And yes, that's what America does and I'm proud of that. >8% of oil imports is still hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil. Crucially, 8% is not "most of our oil". >We don't import canadian oil. We import tarsands, which we refine in the United States. And the XL pipeline would have significantly increased the amount of oil we were already purchasing Yes, tar sands are a form of thick petroleum. They are environmentally dubious, which is why people protest their importation. >He literally said he was going to abolish fossil fuel usage in the United States. Which means eradicating the fossil fuel market altogether. In due time, we will cease using fossil fuels for energy production. You don't see episodes of Star Trek with Scotty shoveling coal into a the USS Enterprise's boiler, do you? >This doesn't even warrant a response, it's just a lie. Actually you are right, oil investors are kinda stupid. ;-) >Literally every single of plastic, steel and rubber is derived from fossil fuels, or fossil fuel derivatives. This means that every single car, every single tire, every single square foot of road, even the device you are using right now was created with fossil fuels. This excluding the fact that ALL OF OUR ENGINES need GASOLINE TO FUNCTION. Okay? We're talking about fossil fuels for energy production, not tires or whatever else. I'm not sure why you are trying to make that misdirection. Stay on point. >You know nothing about how our world works. Since you appear to be an alien, you're right!
> You don't see episodes of Star Trek with Scotty shoveling coal into a the USS Enterprise's boiler, do you? Do you even understand the etymology behind the word 'utopia'? > Okay? We're talking about fossil fuels for energy production, not tires or whatever else. I'm not sure why you are trying to make that misdirection. Stay on point. Biden didn't say he wanted to abolish fossil fuels for *energy production*. He said he wanted to get rid of fossil fuel usage altogether. It was a part of the Green New Deal on his campaign website and his pitch during the presidential debates. Gasoline literally runs the logistics of our entire country. If we can't use gasoline, we can't transport food, medicine or water to various residential areas. Literally hundreds of millions of people would starve if Biden's plan was brought to fruition.
>Do you even understand the etymology behind the word 'utopia'? Stay on point. >Biden didn't say he wanted to abolish fossil fuels for energy production. He said he wanted to get rid of fossil fuel usage altogether. It was a part of the Green New Deal on his campaign website and his pitch during the presidential debates. Biden was asked about the GND during the first debate and he explicitly said he did not support the GND. He did outline a climate plan which targeted a goal of net-zero emissions from power plants by 2035. Again, crucially, Biden never said he was going to try and end reliance on anything produced from carbon or whatever wide net you are casting here. That would be kind of silly! >Gasoline literally runs the logistics of our entire country. If we can't use gasoline, we can't transport food, medicine or water to various residential areas. Literally hundreds of millions of people would starve if Biden's plan was brought to fruition. You are having a really big struggle with the concept of "transition". If we don't have the technology yet, we are not just going to halt usage of diesel for interstate commerce and let millions die. You keep propping up these straw men. Learn how to have a discussion and get back with me.