CharonY

Yes, and there is a chance that it had an effect. However, most studies have focussed at women, where polarizing effects were seen. Though I suspect that the rape conviction had a limited effect, given that opinions on Trump as a person should have solidified prior.

I didn't come across a study that specifically addressed that question (though I did not look for one, either, so they may be around). But I recall a study in 2016, mostly looking at Clinton's messaging regarding gender equality. There, it was found that fathers who had daughters as their first child had a higher likely to vote Clinton, but I do not recall the effect size. This does seem to be in line with a broader body of literature that showed that in general father of daughters are more likely to support policies that are designed to increase gender equality. However, there is also a counter-effect that some parents (not specifically fathers only, as I recall) of daughters who are pro-Trump exhibit what they called "benevolent sexism", with the strongest indicators being that they wanted to protect their daughters from immigrants (which is just plain old racism). In other words, intersectionality plays an important role here.

These are also great points. The latter has already created the gap in the 2016 election, but obviously SCOTUS amplified it even more. It depends a bit on the poll but stratified by age, the gender gap is the largest for folks older than 50 years (>10%). It has to be noted that support is overall higher for Trump in the older segment. This is a bit different to the far-right in Europe, which, in many countries, is supported by young men. I suspect for older men, Trump can be inspirational and one day, they too hope to become a ripe orange.

Regarding economy, there are two factors. For whatever reasons, the GOP was better in branding themselves pro-economy, despite all the data suggesting otherwise. For Trump, the image is enhanced by his TV show, where he plays a successful businessman. The fact that folks get basic things wrong, is probably not very surprising. With regard to men, there is something worldwide going on, though the specifics vary especially on the age demographics demographics between countries. In many countries, men prefer a person that present themselves as an autocrat. Essentially, an insecure person's idea of a strong person. There is also a strong flavour of sexism among Trump voters, as studies have pointed out. Women, understandably are more likely to feel threatened by these sentiments (though apparently, racism can override these sentiments https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9468-2)

That was actually a fairly unpopular move in Germany. Specifically, this was a move from the EU commission and it was controversial to say the least. The backers were mostly France, Hungary, Poland and Romania. I believe Austria has sued, but not sure what happened. In Germany, the pressure was largely from industry but also politics as they consider it necessary as a bridge technology. In the population, it was widely unpopular, so the opposite of a populist move. That being said, Germany has a long history of a anti-nuclear stance, but it is in many ways an ideological and deeply rooted in the cold war and largely predated carbon emission worries. There were also practical reasons, as NIMBYsm has prevented the creation of long-term solutions for nuclear waste.

Sooo, you are saying that there is no one left in Scotland? Also the German Foreign Office: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-rejects-trumps-energy-claim-mocks-him-over-pets/a-70190020

Oh I have heard that in multiple countries. Definitely not an US exclusive. More a time thingy.

And here I thought my days of getting accused of eating pets were over. Whelp, it looks I can stop pretending and start munching now! In all seriousness though, I am kind of glad that we went from believing this kind of things to ridiculing it.

I suggest you read up on at least two philosophical subjects before drawing a conclusion of a failed search. The first is the overarching subject of scientific realism. It is in itself a fairly complex subject but your assertion it is no-existent, does certainly not reflect anything near a consensus. There are certainly approaches that either dismiss or qualify it, such as social constructivism, and empiricism. Though often it is less a criticism on the existence of an objective reality, but rather the assertion that reality is, evenmin the best case, not accessible and can be seen as a critique on realism, rather than reality. However, many areas of antirealism were eventually abandoned (to my knowledge). In fact, you may want to refer the positivism dispute in the 60s-70s. My memory is somewhat hazy (and others might want to chime in), and I am not sure what the current thought on antirealism is, though the critical elements I was interested did not seem to have continued tractions. Rather another branch of realism became important. Here, I suggest that you read up at least on structural realism. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-8361.1989.tb00933.x

Yeah. Also, he had no problem to dance to Cheney's tune while he was president.

Her Father Dick, too.

Apparently AIs are getting dumber, because they there is so much of them that they start "learning" from each other. Oh my god, I just realized why student performance is dropping.

Also, the polarization is not just about the current election. It is a world-wide phenomenon and there are clearly multiple mechanisms at play here that apparently we are not consciously dealing with properly. I think we older folks are deluding ourselves in thinking that things will bounce back somehow. The new norm is already there and more likely to move faster than not.

She has the advantage of being less baggaged from a lengthy campaign and primary, where folks need to take often contradictory stances. While she is doing some more middle-oriented speeches, many have been squarely aimed at progressives and workers. As long as she is not boxed in yet, she can have appeal for both wings.

But just look at its cute little spidey-eyes!