From Laurie
Off topic question - raised by Kevin drum - Why do 40% of voters still support Trump? Why is Hillary currently ahead by only 5 points? As John has said he might vote for Trump and has family members that support Trump maybe he can explain. Everyone I know thinks Trump is the worst candidate ever, unbelievably bad, etc. I was going to comment on the Drum post and try to explain the appeal of Trump but realized I have no idea (other than racism.)
Donald Trump Is Frying My Brain
42 comments:
Why do 40% of voters still support Trump? Why is Hillary currently ahead by only 5 points?
These questions are somewhat mysterious, the first more than the second. I don't fully understand Mr. Trump's popularity. I literally do not know anyone personally who would conceivably support Donald Trump, but then I don't know that many people who would vote for Mitt Romney. But I am not without my theories. One of them is that over the last couple of decades, we have seen our politics discredited. I have talked often about how the legitimacy of our political institutions is under attack and that's a part of it. The result is that we have created a political vacuum, one that Donald's flashy, made for cable charisma seems suited, at least until his ratings tank. His clarity of language, if not his consistency, seems to be the baroque obfuscation, so many politicians employ. And in many, many ways, Hillary is his perfect opponent. Hopelessly insider, with decades of baggage, and with the most metallic tin ear one is ever likely to run across at the highest level of our politics, in some but by no means all, she is perhaps the most vulnerable candidate Democrats could offer to oppose Trump. But as charismatically challenged as Hillary certainly is, she has her strengths as well, and I think they will become more apparent over time.
--Hiram
Hillary is perhaps the most interesting candidate on the Democratic side that could face Trump. Her weaknesses are well-noted above. But the other side to her "decades of baggage" is that she's far more clear-eyed about the nature of her opposition. Barack Obama really believed Republicans would act in good faith and spent most of his first term trying to craft compromises on his domestic agenda designed to placate people who were never going to agree with them (even when he adopted their positions, they didn't get on board). Hillary isn't going to make that mistake, and after a few early missteps, is starting to develop a clear and convincing line of attack against Trump.
While discussing this with my family I came up with the idea that Trump will get very little support from the 15% who are currently undecided or supporting other candidates. Maybe 40% is his maximum. OTOH, maybe if he gets his act together and runs a good campaign for 4 months he could win. My family doesn't think so. Maybe his support would drop off if people thought he actually might win.
"Hillary isn't going to make that mistake, and after a few early missteps, is starting to develop a clear and convincing line of attack against Trump."
Hillary campaigns on pragmatism and realism, and that can be a very weak opening hand. I remember when her campaign was just starting out and she went on a listening tour. In public life for 30 years, and she is just now only beginning to listen? Around forever, and she still doesn't know what she thinks? I mean it was just silly.
Hillary's pragmatism suggests she can work with Republicans. Well, at whose expense will that come? Whose vital interests will be sacrificed on the altar of her pragmatism? Am I going to be this year's Sister Souljah?
Hillary can read a speech that slams Trump pretty effectively. But she lacks the rhetorical suppleness that can devastate Donald Trump. No one has ever taken the Donald down as effectively as President Obama did a few years ago at the correspondents' dinner. President Clinton could have done it effectively, but his wife has always been his blind spot and these days he resembles nothing so much as the mean old man in the neighborhood who yells at the kids to get off his lawn.
I don't expect much from a Clinton administration. If you notice, they aren't offering much. Her failure to connect with issues, with things that matter to Americans goes a long way toward explaining her relatively weak showing against Sanders, and her current inability to blow away her manifestly unfit Republican opponent in the polls. But she is far and away the best we can do now. And with our help, and believe me, no politicians in America have ever been more constitutionally in need of help from their supporters than the Clintons, she may do all right.
--Hiram
Maybe Trump is still within 5 points of Hillary because he is entertaining and Hillary is very boring.
These scientists don’t need to ask who you’re voting for – they can read your mind
Donald Trump Makes a Dupe of Yet Another TV Professional
I think the answer is fairly easy, if not satisfactory. Ask why do 40% of people still approve of the job Obama is doing? Maybe the same 40% of our population supporting Obama are also supporting Trump? I doubt it, and if not, then 80% of us are idiots who shouldn't be allowed to vote?
Just for the record Obama's approval rating is currently 52%. So it sounds like you are no longer a Trump supporter, Jerry. Who do you plan to vote for? What is it about Trump that lost your vote? Or maybe you include yourself in that 40% who are idiots who are supporting Trump.
Ask why do 40% of people still approve of the job Obama is doing?
I think the improving economy is one reason. But also, I think it is because the president is no longer the focus of partisan attacks. I should not that President Bush's approval ratings are going up also. Hillary's approval ratings were much higher when she wasn't a primary target of attacks as well.
--Hiram
Sure, Donald Trump Could Win. Here's How.
In Britain, cultural resentments won out over stability. Can Donald Trump create the same result here?
Today I feel a little more concerned that Trump could win. I agree with the points Drum makes. My 50 year old sister from California has Sander's supporting friends going to Philadelphia to protest at the democratic convention. Also, it has become very clear to me that constant lying doesn't hurt a candidate.
Laurie, since I think the two groups are mutually exclusive, if you insist on thinking Trump supporters are idiots, then you must think that a full 92% of the population are idiots. And while that is harsh language, I don't think it is very far from the truth. I've long said that you have 30% of people who always vote Republican (even with Trump as the nominee), 35% of people who always vote Democrat, 25% of people who vote based on the last (usually negative) campaign ad they saw, and about 10% who actually go in and vote based on some reasonably informed view of the issues.
I propose a small thought experiment. Pick a number-- 90 million votes in a presidential election-- divided equally at this point between Trump and Clinton. Now, suppose something occurs, after Hillary secures the nomination and maybe mere days from the election, that makes it impossible for her to serve. She stays on the ballot only because they've already been printed. The question: How many votes, beyond the 45 million he was slated to get, would Trump receive? How many people would still vote for the non-existent choice of Hillary?
I am a strong Obama supporter and I don't consider myself an idiot. I seriously don't see how you can compare Obama and Trump. Have you watched speeches from each of them?
In a a normal election year I think it is closer to 45% vote locked in for each of the parties and 10% that is a bit of a swing vote. If Hillary were to die in a plane crash days before the election (similar to Wellstone) there would be a stand in candidate, most likely Sanders, who could get a large % of write in votes.
I think there are 50% of voters (or more) who would never vote for Trump. If Trump were to win it would be with less than 50% because of third party candidates taking 5-10% of the vote.
"I've long said that you have 30% of people who always vote Republican (even with Trump as the nominee), 35% of people who always vote Democrat, 25% of people who vote based on the last (usually negative) campaign ad they saw, and about 10% who actually go in and vote based on some reasonably informed view of the issues."
What about those people who always vote Democrat because they have a reasonably informed view of the issues?
I think your Venn diagram is a little off.
Joel
Joel, you could be easily right, but from where I stand, "reasonably informed" doesn't describe the whole of consistent Democrat voters. Nor Republicans, I'll admit, but when surveys are taken to "ban deadly dihydrogen monoxide" it is mostly Democrats who sign on.
Laurie, I've listened to speeches from both, but I've stopped listening to Obama speeches because I won't tolerate the lies, fantasies and self-aggrandizement. I'm not crazy about Trump's speeches because they're a bit harsh for my taste, lacking in clarity and style, but still more "right" than Obama OR Hillary.
My perception of this race is that it is unique in that, unlike past contests in which the Republican was demonized, this year both candidates will be in a "race to the bottom" and the "lesser of two evils" will be the victor.
"Nor Republicans, I'll admit, but when surveys are taken to "ban deadly dihydrogen monoxide" it is mostly Democrats who sign on."
I've never seen a survey of that sort anywhere, so I guess I'll just have to take your word for it?
It only proves that people can be tricked by unusual or deceptive tactics. Which I suppose explains Trump's popularity among Republicans.
Joel
"....though the most extreme supporters should definitely be described as racist."
Laurie, that is incorrect. You are describing these people as racist because they have an /opinion/ (about something, I don't know what) that disagrees with you. I would wager that the vast majority of them have some reason for that opinion and therefore your characterization of them as racist is raw bigotry or at least unfair. Sorry.
"It only proves that people can be tricked by unusual or deceptive tactics." Joel is right, here. Calling people racist simply for disagreeing is a quite usual liberal deceptive tactic-- essentially an ad hominem attack to avoid a debate on the merits.
"Calling people racist simply for disagreeing..." is not reality. It is a figment of your imagination. People are getting called 'racist' because they are acting like racists.
Joel
Oh, really? Isn't that an /opinion/ on your part, with which I, citing ample evidence, can disagree? How about all of those people being called racist for having policy differences with Obama? Do they simply not exist?
"How about all of those people being called racist for having policy differences with Obama?"
Examples?
Joel
http://mynorthwest.com/86024/the-obama-tickets-disunity-tour-photo-id-is-racist-but-only-if-called-for-by-a-republican/
http://conservativetribune.com/holder-its-racist-to-disagree-with-obama-watch/
http://godfatherpolitics.com/if-you-disagree-president-obama-you-must-racist/
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2008/06/23/obama_calls_republicans_racists
Try to find less biased sources, please. I don't want to lose any extra brain cells today.
Joel
You want a less biased source than Obama, or Eric Holder? Easy. Try Rush Limbaugh.
"You want a less biased source than Obama, or Eric Holder? Easy. Try Rush Limbaugh."
You want to be taken seriously? Easy. Avoid Right-Wing websites and authors as sources.
Joel
Right wing? By whose standard, yours? From where I sit, I use only the most factual and objective sources. I have proven my case, with sources. Your turn.
Oh, yes. Rush Limbaugh.
If you think he and anything he is associated with is factual and objective, you are a fool.
Joel
And if you don't believe what Rush is telling his 20 million listeners, you've never listened to him. And certainly haven't actually heard what he said. Much of his show is direct quotes from media sources or from people themselves. He often quotes Obama and other administration officials. Are you going to tell me that what Obama says are lies, or an attempt to deceive? Shouldn't you make that determination AFTER you hear it, rather than prejudicially, prior to it?
I am surprised. You assume that Rush Limbaugh won't tell the honest truth, even when he tells you the exact same thing (perhaps with quotes) as Obama and Eric Holder. It must be great to be able to hold two completely contrary "truths" in your mind at the same time.
Now I have listened to Rush before... And he may use quotes and facts, however he twists them and sensationalizes them in such a way to rile up his ditto heads and keep them listening.
As long as one remembers that he is an entertainer first, and a news source second he is somewhat amusing to listen to.
Remember, if Fox is Far Right. Rush is just right of them...
Rush Website
I'm not understanding the point, here. The truth is where you find it. If Obama says something and Rush Limbaugh plays the sound bite, who is lying?
I've listened to Rush. If you consider that to be journalism, God help you. It's sensationalist trash.
Joel
Jerry,
Just like the far Left media, the far Right media takes snippets of quotes without context and then spins them to support their story line.
I mean look at all the Trump sound bites we have heard taken out of context by the Left leaning media outlets..
Joel,
I wouldn't go that far, much what Rush says is generally correct. However he sure does try to milk it for every ratings point he can.
I think you are wrong about Rush, both of you. Yes, he is an entertainer. He [accurately] quotes things that media or public figures (especially politicians) say, and then comments on them. The facts are accurate, the commentary is biased but makes eminent good sense to his millions of listeners, and he does it in a very entertaining way. Again, the truth is where you find it. Also again, I offered you two direct and unfiltered links to Obama and to Eric Holder that substantiate the claim that their stock in trade is demonizing the opposition, in particular by calling them racist just for disagreeing.
Here's a concrete example: Obama consistently avoids the term "Islamic terrorist," even going so far as to say that the "Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is "not Islamic," and then goes on to condemn anyone that disagrees with importing these terrorists as a "racist." (even though they're all Caucasians) It's not racism, it's common sense.
'Obama consistently avoids the term "Islamic terrorist," even going so far as to say that the "Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is "not Islamic,"'
Is the KKK Christian?
Joel
No. Unless "Ku Klux" is some foreign language for "Christian," which it isn't. The first two words of the organization’s name supposedly derived from the Greek word “kyklos,” meaning circle.
Is the Islamic State Islamic? Care to defend the Obama statement that it isn't?
The Imperial Wizard says otherwise. They are a Christian organization.
Please tell me how the Klan's actions represent the Christian faith.
Is the Westboro Baptist Church Baptist?
Joel
KKK Statement
OK, let us accept the Klan and the Baptists as being what they represent themselves to be. (Come to think of it, it /is/ crosses that the Klan burns.) So why is Obama so dead set against calling Islamists Islamists? Add "radical" if you want, as you might to Hillsboro or the Klan, but you have to call it what it is in order to fight it, Why does Obama so strenuously avoid the term?
"but you have to call it what it is in order to fight it"
Is Osama bin Laden less dead because Obama failed to classify him according to conservative orthodoxy?
Osama bin Laden is dead because G. W. Bush and his administration wanted him dead and Obama was too feckless to stop the plans already under way. And if Obama is to get credit for OBL, then he must also get credit for Paris, Syria, Orlando, San Bernadino, Fort Hood, right?
I don't see how anybody can worry about Trump "frying brains" when all he is doing is telling us what the vast majority of us already know, while our supposed CIC tries to deny it.
The only point I'm trying to make is that you can do things to stop terrorism whether you call it "radical Islamist terrorism" or "violent extremists" or "unicorns and rainbows" or something else completely. We should talking about the policy, not the terminology.
I accept your point; it is certainly reasonable. And if those other "things" were being done we wouldn't be having this discussion. What we have, however, is a great hue and cry about gun control, which any reasonable analysis says would have zero effect on the terrorist threat. It looks like a clear failure to properly identify the problem by failing to call it what it is, and that must be the starting point for seeking a solution. Doesn't it fry your brain when our politicians run about with non-solutions to very real problems?
Post a Comment