“No, political analysts do not examine whether people are voting in their “best interests.””

Starting with “you don’t seem like a troll” and then saying you won’t engage and you COULD answer more but you have a job and so on is pretty condescending, not sure why you’re pretending it’s not.

To be honest, I don’t see the support lasting post-election (and I don’t mean that as a ‘won’t support Hillary’ issue). Many of the people I’m around that are Sanders supporters are extremely politically active, but outside of the more traditional methods.

She IS a warmongering neoliberal. That’s the whole reason I’m asking why people support her.

Horseshoe theory in action right there.

Your attempt to walk back your own point by hanging on the ‘I could maybe see your point’ is admirable, but transparent.

So what you’re saying is there are areas where it’s fair to examine whether or not someone is voting in their own interest? And they just happen to line up with a particular candidate’s inability to justify her record?

I get where you’re coming from but two points to that:

This isn’t a personal pet theory of mine, this is a well established thesis and pretty much explains the election efforts of Republicans.

Here’s my problem:

Those are fair points. And yet he’s one of the most anti-war candidates we’ve had in recent history, miles beyond the other options. Which is why I think we need to shift our system away from just how comfortable we’ve become with killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people around the world.

“Who the hell are you to proclaim someone’s reasons for voting invalid.”

So in that entire comment, the closest it gets to explain “reasons” why she supports Hillary is “But at least she’s actively talking about and to us before it was an issue of votes and winning and that I appreciate.”

Yes because I’m supposed to read all 1000 comments on this article before writing a response to a person. Get over yourself.

Sorry but I don’t see Hillary as someone having a long-term pro-women pro-minority record at all. She’s been great on certain women’s issues, pretty awful on others, and absolutely has not been a pro-minority politician except for the sudden passion she feels for minority issues around election times.

Yeah I couldn’t disagree more with that. Actually I see articles once in a while about a wealthy CEO type supporting Sanders, and the novelty of them voting against their own interests (at least according to the narrative) is the only reason it’s news.

I’d somewhat agree with that, but say that candidates run on these issues but generally don’t seem to get around to fulfilling the promises (though the impact of the tea party has the Republican establishment dealing with candidates that are actually trying to do the crazy bullshit that establishment Republicans try…

Appreciate the response. Mostly.

People have been questioning why white rural evangelicals vote against their interests for decades - it’s been a large focus of political and cultural analyses.

Not to come across rude but I don’t think you’re being generous, I think it’s just incorrect. It’s absolutely not safe to conclude that salaries have risen just because cost of living has gone up.