Wednesday Reads: Election Results

Remember to turn your clocks back this weekend…

Cartoons from Cagle:

At the time of writing this, the results were not in, so here are a few tweets:

This thread here by Mona Eltahawy:


Meanwhile, at the World Series:

In other news:

I will end with this:

It’s an open thread.

22 Comments on “Wednesday Reads: Election Results”

  1. Minkoff Minx says:

    Well, it is what it is:


  2. Minkoff Minx says:

    BB, this may interest you:

    It deals with language…

    “How does a scientist find out how people adjust their language use when they are together? People start talking differently with someone who doesn’t speak their language or is hard of hearing, but how do you measure that? Prof. Marc Swerts, together with a colleague from Antwerp and his very creative students, devised a game method that shows that Flemish people are more likely to adapt to Dutch people than the other way around. This was shown by analyses of word choice as well as pronunciation. Their research was recently published in the scientific journal Frontiers in Communication. An interview with Prof. Marc Swerts about his study into linguistic and non-verbal adaptation behavior.”

  3. Minkoff Minx says:

    • bostonboomer says:

      I can’t see how that could stand up in court. It’s ridiculous. People could lie anyway.

      • NW Luna says:

        Wonder how they’ll categorize the students’ opinions. This could be amusing but it’s not because of the Republican Big Brother attitude.

  4. dakinikat says:

    Enjoy some nice music! It’s going to be a rough year or so.

  5. dakinikat says:

  6. Brin says:

    I find the election details confusing.

    At 9:36 pm last night Sahil Kapur tweeted that McAuliffe “is getting clobbered by white women” and at 11:26 pm Mona Eltahawy says, “white women are footsoldiers of white supremacist patriarchy”.

    However, this morning states that overall, “White men and White women voted for Youngkin at 66% and 57% respectively, while Black men and Black women voted at 87% and 86% respectively for McAuliffe”.

    The Washington Post polling data indicates that 62% of white women college graduates voted for McAuliffe while just 45% of white men college graduates voted for McAuliffe. Among white non-college graduates, the votes swung heavily for Youngkin, 78% of white male non-college grads and 75% of white female non-college grads.

    Didn’t McAuliffe get “clobbered” by white men, regardless of level of education, and get clobbered by white women with less education? Is it just assumed that of course white men will vote for Youngkin, no need to remark on that? It would have been lovely if everyone had approached the 86-87% support for McAuliffe that Black voters had delivered.

    • quixote says:

      Exactly. Two minds with but a single thought. Except you’re faster at typing 😀 .

    • djmm says:

      Very well stated!!! But in some ways it is puzzling. Many white women without college educations are in the middle to lower economic classes — which the Democrats help. Many of them likely got the child tax credits — which Republicans did not vote for.

      Sure, some are conservative evangelicals, but not all and probably not 75%. Why isn’t our message getting through to more of them?

    • bostonboomer says:

      Women have to be blamed for everything.

  7. quixote says:

    “White women, non-college” is another way of saying “evangelicals” without having to say evangelicals. The frame gets to blame women and avoid any icky references to religion.

    Meanwhile, there *is* a whole religion devoted to white patriarchy. With men in it! (But they voted hugely for trumpists all along, so how interesting is that?) So let’s blame racist laydeez. W00T. Misogyny for the win.

    (Seriously? It’s a problem to shoot at the wrong thing. It means You Do Not Hit The Target. Beating up women is just going to confirm that their only meal ticket is white patriarchy.)

    (Not saying you’re doing it, JJ. Screaming at the framing, which I’m seeing *everywhere*.)

    • dakinikat says:

      • quixote says:

        Good article. Important points that it’s not really about voters switching (including white women…). It’s about voters not being fired up to vote. I.e. turnout. The Dems had a huge deficit there.

        Because they don’t *feel* like the Dems have delivered enough. The fact that Dems *have* delivered a lot isn’t the point. As she points out, the feeling is: “There’s been no movement on voting rights or reproductive rights or climate change. Biden’s even failing on his biggest issue, major economic reforms to make life easier and fairer for workers. The Build Back Better plan languishes in a state of purgatory, kept there by centrist Democratic senators who clearly plan to keep coming up with excuses to put off the vote until it’s killed off forever.” (She’s wrong about the lack of movement on reproductive rights. There’s been lots. All in the wrong direction.)

        Anyway, she does put her finger on the malaise.

  8. dakinikat says: