News Do You Know Why Trump is Popular?

[lisab]

If so, can you 'splain it all to me? No one expected Trump to last.

Most thought that he'd be gone faster than a toupee in a hurricane.

Yet here we are, just weeks from the Iowa caucus -- AND HE'S STILL HERE. Real Clear Politics has Trump and Cruz tied in Iowa (27% each, but it remains to be seen whose supporters will actually turn out to vote). We're all aware that opinion polls and votes are different - but that's OK, because I'm specifically asking about Trump's popularity.

My question is to people who follow US politics: How do you explain Trump's support? What's going on there? The pundits struggle to explain it, which you probably already know if you follow US politics. No denying it: there are people out there who really LOVE the guy. Why? I'm especially interested in what PF conservatives think.


Please read this next part before posting!

All PFers who follow the Current Events forum should know by now how we feel about posting opinions here: you can post your opinion as long as you clearly understand that other people - good, kind, generous, honest, lovely people - may hold the opposite opinion. Adamantly.

So in this thread I'm asking for your opinion - yes you! you good, kind, generous, honest, lovely person, and I ask that you maintain respect for all of us good, kind, generous, honest, lovely people who are posting alongside you.

 

[Bystander]

He tells it like it is; not what you or I would like.

 

[russ_watters]

I'd never vote for him, but I do love that he drives liberals in/and the media nuts. Delicious irony.

Conservatives feel like oppressed minorities. Obama doesn't govern for us, he governs against us. The media doesn't report the news for us, it reports the news against us. Trump lashes out/back at that and for many, that's enough to be attractive.

That, and Trump is really the only one with name recognition and a serious high profile. The others split the more moderate vote and Trump gets a large majority of the more right wing.

 

[lisab]

I'd never vote for him, but I do love that he drives liberals in/and the media nuts. Delicious irony.

Conservatives feel like oppressed minorities. Obama doesn't govern for us, he governs against us. The media doesn't report the news for us, it reports the news against us. Trump lashes out/back at that and for many, that's enough to be attractive.

I understand that sentiment, having been on the other side of it when Bush was President.

But are you worried that Trump's popularity makes the GOP nomination process look like a reality-show circus, and that in turn makes the GOP look bad? (My opinion: I think it really does.)

 

[russ_watters]

I understand that sentiment, having been on the other side of it when Bush was President.

But did Bush ever tell you he wasn't on your side?

But are you worried that Trump's popularity makes the GOP nomination process look like a reality-show circus, and that in turn makes the GOP look bad? (My opinion: I think it really does.)

Yes. He can't do long-term damage, but he can cause the GOP to lose the Presidential election. At this point - though I'm still going to say I'd bet against it - there is a real possibility of him winning the nomination. That worries me because I think Hillary is beatable, but not by him.

 

[fresh_42]

But did Bush ever tell you he wasn't on your side?

Yes. He can't do long-term damage, but he can cause the GOP to lose the Presidential election. At this point - though I'm still going to say I'd bet against it - there is a real possibility of him winning the nomination. That worries me because I think Hillary is beatable, but not by him.

Is there ANY of the GOP candidates who isn't completely nuts? Haven't seen one.

 

[russ_watters]

Is there ANY of the GOP candidates who isn't completely nuts? Haven't seen one.

That's not a very rational thing to say.

 

[Thewindyfan]

He's basically being vocal with the opinions of many people, no matter how outright wrong they may be.

 

[fresh_42]

That's not a very rational thing to say.

That is why I don't hear rational statements of them. The saddest thing about it is, that the best candidate means half a century of Bush government for the US. I made one of those tests where you can find out which candidate fits best to you. And I promise I answered the questions considering what I think is best for the USA. The winner wasn't among the GOP candidates.

 

[russ_watters]

I made one of those tests where you can find out which candidate fits best to you. And I promise I answered the questions considering what I think is best for the USA. The winner wasn't among the GOP candidates.

I'm not surprised, but if you can't see anything besides "nuts" from the other side, I submit that you aren't giving the ideas due consideration and perhaps more importantly, respect.

 

[fresh_42]

I'm not surprised, but if you can't see anything besides "nuts" from the other side, I submit that you aren't giving the ideas due consideration and perhaps more importantly, respect.

Sorry, did you say respect? Whom? Trump's Mexican wall? Cruz' divine and changing inspirations or Carson's sights that always make you ask how in hell did he become a neurologist. Their fear of gay people? Their position on guns? On planned parenthood? Their trend to start a war? Who's been last that didn't? Nixon? Sorry, again. I'm not drunk enough.

 

[Dotini]

No denying it: there are people out there who really LOVE the guy. Why? I'm especially interested in what PF conservatives think.

I'm a sort of conservative - I wear both belt and suspenders, and I've voted libertarian for the last 4 presidential elections. I will be happy to explain why Trump is loved by many.

IMO, the simplest answer is that he is for peace and prosperity; all the others are for more conflict and war, and for the continued transfer of US jobs to foreigners.

Slightly more complicated is his charisma. His energy, confidence, size, swagger, wealth, whatever it is, appeals strongly to many men and women.

 

[S.G. Janssens]

Could someone from the US perhaps provide me with a link to an independent vote match test for your upcoming presidential elections that includes all (most?) active Republican, Democrat and, possibly, other candidates? Is https://www.isidewith.com/ a reliable choice? Of course I can't vote, but purely for my own curiosity I would like to see what I get.

 

[Isaac0427]

Could someone from the US perhaps provide me with a link to an independent vote match test for your upcoming presidential elections that includes all (most?) active Republican, Democrat and, possibly, other candidates? Is https://www.isidewith.com/ a reliable choice? Of course I can't vote, but purely for my own curiosity I would like to see what I get.

Your link is actually very good. I have done it, and I'm too young to vote,

 

[Evo]

The thread is reopened. To answer false accusations made, Dale thought the thread was fine and would be fine with re-opening it, he was on duty at the time the report came in requesting the thread be closed, so closed it temporarily while the mentors discussed it. That is normal policy. Any member wishing information on a closed thread can ask the mentor.

I agreed to allow lisab to start a thread about people's opinions on Trump since she was curious why he is so popular. If you state facts, you must provide an approved source, if your opinions include facts that are not widely publicized, you must include approved sources. If you are asked to provide sources to clarify a statement, you must provide them.

You may not discuss other candidates, this thread is about Trump.

 

[fresh_42]

Your link is actually very good. I have done it, and I'm too young to vote,

This is also the one I've made.

 

[Isaac0427]

My question is to people who follow US politics: How do you explain Trump's support? What's going on there? The pundits struggle to explain it, which you probably already know if you follow US politics. No denying it: there are people out there who really LOVE the guy. Why? I'm especially interested in what PF conservatives think.

Sorry, did you say respect? Whom? Trump's Mexican wall? Cruz' divine and changing inspirations or Carson's sights that always make you ask how in hell did he become a neurologist. Their fear of gay people? Their position on guns? On planned parenthood? Their trend to start a war? Who's been last that didn't? Nixon? Sorry, again. I'm not drunk enough.

Let's not make generalizations on conservatives. I happen to be a republican, and I am a leader in my school's GSA (gay straight alliance). I couldn't dream of a reason I would (if I were old enough) vote for Trump, Cruz, Carson, Huckabee or Santorum. They do not understand the separation of church and state and the separation of crazy people and government (which does need to be a thing). Look at what conservative leaders say about Trump. Paul Ryan? Dick Chaney? There are few people more conservative than them, and neither likes Trump. IMO, Trump is a fascist, not a conservative.

 

[Isaac0427]

And to be clear, I am not trying to be offensive to anyone who likes Trump. I do respect all opinions, so I'm sorry if my post is taken to be offensive, it was not meant that way.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I'd never vote for him, but I do love that he drives liberals in/and the media nuts. Delicious irony.

Conservatives feel like oppressed minorities. Obama doesn't govern for us, he governs against us. The media doesn't report the news for us, it reports the news against us. Trump lashes out/back at that and for many, that's enough to be attractive.

That, and Trump is really the only one with name recognition and a serious high profile. The others split the more moderate vote and Trump gets a large majority of the more right wing.

russ, I find it interesting that you feel that conservatives in the US feel like oppressed minorities, given the following:

1. Republicans currently have control of both houses of Congress (and had control of the House of Representatives since 2010).

2. The Republicans had control of the White House under George W. Bush for two terms, with the Republicans having effective control of both houses of Congress for much of the first term.

3. Obama, in my opinion, isn't really that much of a liberal. For example, the Affordable Care Act (often referred to as "Obamacare", for which Obama is often credited to bringing into law) is largely based on similar legislation instituted within the state of Massachussetts by then-Governor Mitt Romney, a Republican, and the basic concepts of which were proposed by the conservative Heritage Foundation. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Background

4. Fox News reports the news specifically for conservatives.

 

[StatGuy2000]

lisab, to answer your question as to why Trump is so popular, my own personal opinion is that there is a tremendous degree of anger, frustration and dissatisfaction within the US, due in part to the tremendous toll that the Great Recession of 2008 had taken on the economy, which had taken years to recover from.

Furthermore, many are incredibly frustrated on the degree to which wealthy donors and special interest groups have influenced American politics through their enormous contributions to the election campaigns of politicians at both the federal and (to a lesser extent) the state level to pay for political advertising, which has further been exacerbated by the Supreme Court Decision on Citizens United which stated that corporations had the same free speech rights as individuals, giving unprecedented ability for such special interests to give more and more money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC#Majority_opinion

Due to the above, I suspect that many in the US feel they really can't trust any of the potential candidates (either Democratic or Republican) to really represent the interests of the people, thus giving ammunition for a candidate like Trump (who is wealthy enough not to need to fund his campaign through donations in the same way as other candidates) to make outrageous remarks that channel a lot of that anger and frustration at various scapegoats (e.g. immigrants). This must be refreshing for people out there.

 

[Mark44]

russ, I find it interesting that you feel that conservatives in the US feel like oppressed minorities, given the following:

1. Republicans currently have control of both houses of Congress (and had control of the House of Representatives since 2010).

Not so. Republicans definitely control the House, and they have a majority in the Senate, but it's not a large enough minority to ward off requirements of 60+ for some bills.

2. The Republicans had control of the White House under George W. Bush for two terms, with the Republicans having effective control of both houses of Congress for much of the first term.

3. Obama, in my opinion, isn't really that much of a liberal.

I find this hard to take seriously. If Obama isn't a liberal, then I guess no one is. A president who announces that he plans to "fundamentally transform America" is pretty radical, in my view.

For example, the Affordable Care Act (often referred to as "Obamacare", for which Obama is often credited to bringing into law) is largely based on similar legislation instituted within the state of Massachussetts by then-Governor Mitt Romney, a Republican, and the basic concepts of which were proposed by the conservative Heritage Foundation. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Background

I don't doubt for a minute that very many conservative voters decided against voting for Romney in the 2012 election precisely because of this. Regarding the Heritage Foundation, the wiki article says that they, "proposed an individual mandate as an alternative to single-payer health care." To the best of my knowledge, not a single Republican suggestion to make Obamacare more market-oriented (such as establishment of health savings accounts, enabling customers to purchase coverage outside of their state, choice of coverage with lower or higher deductibles, etc.) were incorporated into the final bill, which Nancy Pelosi famously described as "we have to vote on it to see what's in it."

4. Fox News reports the news specifically for conservatives.

While virtually every other news medium, print or broadcast, puts out their product with a liberal spin. How often does a reporter ask Obama or other liberal figure the kinds of hard questions that they routinely ask leaders on the right?

I agree completely with what Russ said about conservatives feeling like oppressed minorities.

Some anecdotal evidence below, taken from "And That's the Way It Isn't", by Brent Bozell and Brent H. Baker, publ. 1990.
News
Walter Cronkite - "I think most newspapermen by definition have to be liberal; if they're not liberal, by my definition of it, then they can hardly be good newspapermen." -quoted in "The Establishment vs. The People" by Richard Viguerie.

Diane Sawyer - "Once I got a card at 60 Minutes that said, 'You are a brazen right-wing hussy,' she recalls, 'I was able to write back and say, I'm not ritght-wing." - Washington Post, Aug 2, 1989

Mike Wallace - "I read Mother Jones carefully and look forward to every issue. After all, stories that started out in Mother Jones have wound up on 60 Minute." - as quoted in a subscription letter for the far-left magazine Mother Jones.

Carl Bernstein - "They love their country. The German Democratic Republic, not the Federal Reublic of the West. They believe insocialism. Not the socialism of their disgraced and discredited leaders but the socialism they have been taught as an ideal for 40 years." Time, Jan 22, 1990

Political afiliation of reporters (from a study commissioned by the AP Managing Editors Association in 1985) from a wide variety of newspapers: Boston Globe, New York Daily News, as well as many small-town newspapers, such as the Milford (CT) Statesman, Oskaloosa (KS) Herald, and others. Compared to the general public, reporters in the study were half as likely to be Republican (15% vs 31%), and more likely to be Democrat (43% vs 37%) or Independent (34% vs. 23%).

Education
Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty
Stanley Rothman, S. Robert Lichter, Neil Nevitte
http://www.cwu.edu/~manwellerm/academic%20bias.pdf
The North American Academic Study Survey (NAASS) found that of 81 doctoral, 59 comprehensive, and 43 liberal arts institutions, the number of professors self-describing their political identification as Left/Liberal increased from 39% to 72% between 1984 and 1999. Those describing their identification as Right/Conservative decreased from 34% to 15%. The US population overall who identified as Left/Liberal stayed constant at 18% during this time, and those who identified as Right/Conservative decreased from 37% to 33%.

And then there's Hollywood...

 

[Mark44]

lisab, to answer your question as to why Trump is so popular, my own personal opinion is that there is a tremendous degree of anger, frustration and dissatisfaction within the US, due in part to the tremendous toll that the Great Recession of 2008 had taken on the economy, which had taken years to recover from.

I suspect that's part of it, but I also believe that people want a leader (and not one who "leads from behind") who can make them feel safer. Cases in point:

• the near collapse of Iraq, which was easily as safe as, say, Chicago, when Obama inherited it
• the collapse of Syria and the concommitant rise of ISIS/ISIL
• the dreadful nuclear treaty with Iran
• Iran's excursions into Yemen and Syria
• Putin's shenanigans in Ukraine
• North Korea's recent A-test (which wasn't supposed to happen per the deal that Bill Clinton made with them)
• the attack on Benghazi
• etc., etc.

 

[russ_watters]

Mark44's comments were good and I won't repeat where we overlap:

russ, I find it interesting that you feel that conservatives in the US feel like oppressed minorities, given the following:

1. Republicans currently have control of both houses of Congress (and had control of the House of Representatives since 2010).

I said "feel like", which doesn't necessarily mean they *are*. Or to put a finer point on it, yes, I believe that conservatives maintain a (slim) majority of the population, so they aren't minorities at all, but they are for lack of a better word oppressed and marginalized.

3. Obama, in my opinion, isn't really that much of a liberal.

I find that hard to swallow as well, but it isn't really the point anyway. The point was that Obama governs adversarially. Specifically, he portrays negative attitudes/actions toward whites and the rich (and by association anyone who associates with/agrees with/wants to be rich).

I get that the more passionate on each side tend to believe opposing presidents aren't on their side, but Obama appears unique to me in his willingness to actually come right out and say it. My perception is that this caused blowback which helped the Tea Party emerge.

4. Fox News reports the news specifically for conservatives.

Yes, and pretty much all other major news outlets lean left. It is easy to feel marginalized when most of the most successful ("mainstream") news outlets and therefore opinions being reported come from the other direction. And Fox News itself catches heavy flak and derision that while partly due to its popularity, other mirror image outlets (MSNBC) don't. That may be related to their minority status in the media.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

The world and politics has never been more complicated and the president's job is impossible.

People are attracted to Trump's historical "disconnection" to politics and strong man rhetoric. I agree people are scared and think Trump will stand by them. Unfortunately building a wall, playing cards with Putin and shutting the Internet down isn't going to keep us safe.

 

[russ_watters]

A phenomena I've seen with Trump is that it appears The Media has locked-on to him in a way that feeds into his popularity. I often see headlines and themes that then get repeated elsewhere (here, facebook), that essentially label every single thing that comes out of his mouth as absurd or crazy, no matter what the actual content. If I read the actual quote and it doesn't look crazy, then it feeds into the us-vs-them climate that Republicans sense from the media. That triggers sympathy for and therefore support of him since he's the target. It's become a Trump oriented version of Goodwin's Law.

Less passionate politicians make an effort to sound reasonable and not offensive, to the point of often covering-up their actual position. More radical ones (or ones who just don't care) are more likely to say controversial things, but may not necessarily mean them exactly as said. Adding to that, I think there is a tendency with most people to be able to see content through rhetoric at a rate that is inversely proportional to distance on the political spectrum. In other words, if there is something reasonable behind fiery rhetoric, you might be able to see it if you are nearby on the political spectrum, but you won't if you are further away. That's combined with the tendency to want to assume positive things about your side and negative things about the other. To say it another way: a person both wants to more and is more capable of seeing the logic in views near their own.

I'll see if I can find some specific examples, but if people want, I can try acting as a "Trump Interpreter", to see if I can find any hidden rationality in Trump statements others post. They will just be my opinion/interpretation, but note that when it comes to politicians it isn't really possible to be sure of their exact position until they act on it. So we're all just seeing what we want to see.

 

[russ_watters]

The world and politics has never been more complicated and the president's job is impossible.

Not to drag this off topic, but I've heard analysis suggesting that the problem is caused by an unintended consequence of Obama's attempts at pork barrel spending reduction. Pork barrel spending is part of how federal politicians get themselves re-elected, but it is also a negotiating tactic that helps grease compromises. With less of it, there is less incentive to compromise, which then also leaves the President with less room to compromise. Since this comes from Harry Reid - a member of his own party - I tend to give it some weight. I don't like pork and I don't like Reid (it would be nice if politicians would just be adults instead), so I'm not sure how to feel about that...

Read more here:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/12/opinion/zelizer-the-case-for-earmarks/

 

[StatGuy2000]

I find that hard to swallow as well, but it isn't really the point anyway. The point was that Obama governs adversarially. Specifically, he portrays negative attitudes/actions toward whites and the rich (and by association anyone who associates with/agrees with/wants to be rich).

I find the above point on Obama hard to swallow, given that I have never heard any speech that Obama has given where he specifically negatively portrays whites. Can you point me to a very specific example of this?

As for governing adversarially, at least my recollection was that during the early part of the administration, Obama has often gone out of his way to try to work across the aisle and reach out to Republican leaders, and it is the Republicans in both the House of Representatives (mainly) and the Senate (to a somewhat lesser extent) who have spurned his overtures. In fact, over the past several years, it was the members of the Tea Party wing of the Republican party that have sought to block the raising the debt ceiling (and have the US government very nearly default on their debt payments) as well as orchestrated the shutdown of the government. So from my perspective, it is the Republicans who have governed adversarially and were obstructionist.

I get that the more passionate on each side tend to believe opposing presidents aren't on their side, but Obama appears unique to me in his willingness to actually come right out and say it. My perception is that this caused blowback which helped the Tea Party emerge.

Again, I have no specific evidence to indicate that Obama wasn't on the side of those who didn't vote for him. I would need a specific example of this.

Yes, and pretty much all other major news outlets lean left. It is easy to feel marginalized when most of the most successful ("mainstream") news outlets and therefore opinions being reported come from the other direction. And Fox News itself catches heavy flak and derision that while partly due to its popularity, other mirror image outlets (MSNBC) don't. That may be related to their minority status in the media.

First of all, I disagree with Mark44 that the successful news outlets are really as "liberal" as portrayed. Of course, many individual reporters may have liberal views, but those views are common among university-educated people. And I frankly don't see any evidence that the liberal views of the reporters have substantially skewed the way the news is being reported -- if anything, the way reporters are trained (to make sure to report "both sides on an issue") has hindered the way that Americans are informed because the reporters are unable to rebut statements that may be clearly wrong (e.g. when Sarah Palin retorted that the Affordable Care Act will lead to "death panels", the response of the mainstream media was to say the following, in a paraphrased form: Sarah Palin states that the Affordable Care Act will lead to death panels, whereas Democrats dismiss such allegations). As if both sides necessarily be given equal weight.

Now as far as Fox News catching heavy flak and derision, this has far more to do with situations like having a supposed "expert on terrorism" Steven Emerson appear claiming the existence of "no-go zones" in various European cities for non-Muslims, including Birmingham, UK (who also claimed that Birmingham, UK, is "totally Muslim"), with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, and earning ridicule from the likes of (conservative) British Prime Minister David Cameron who referred to him as an "idiot".

http://www.theguardian.com/media/20...over-birmingham-is-totally-muslim-city-claims

And these are far from isolated incidences on Fox News.

 

[boomtrain]

I'm not American and I think Trump is a clown, but I can see the appeal.

The average schmo feels like the elites of the country aren't on their side. Political correctness has become a tool to shut down debate on important but controversial issues, and plenty of people would rather vote for a clown than a mainstream politician who can't or won't address their concerns.

Proposals to build a border fence that mexico pays for or to shut down Muslim immigration are ridiculous and unrealistic, but the alternative (don't enforce border laws and keep the status quo in immigration regulations) are even more unpalatable. In the aftermath of terrorist attacks, we often hear from mainstream republicans and media elites that islam is a religion of peace and that you're more likely to get hit by lightning than die in a terrorist attack. While muslims are good people and those statements may be true, the fact remains that zero intervention in muslim countries + zero muslim immigration =~ zero islamic terror, so policy proposals to that effect resonate with the electorate. Mexico has many good people, but it's crazy to have an unguarded border with a country in the midst of an extremely violent drug war. Rather than address this, mainstream republicans seem to think that illegally immigrating is an act of love. Most politicians need political contributions and favourable media coverage, which really limits what they can say about any issue that might be offensive. Trump is completely independent, and gets away with saying things that would completely sink other politicians. I can see why people who feel like their legitimate concerns are met with accusations of racism and xenophobia to gravitate to the one republican candidate who is willing to take them seriously.

 

[Hornbein]

Trump represents the dissatisfaction of large swaths of the population for whom the system is not working. Their standard of living is going down, no one seems to care, and they (rightly, IMO) believe that things will continue to grow worse for them unless something is done. All they get from the mainstream is vacuous happy talk (and yes, I have an authoritative reference for that and why that is).

If it weren't Trump, someone else would rise up.

 

[StatGuy2000]

To add further to what I posted earlier, I believe Trump's popularity is the right-wing parallel to the popularity of Bernie Sanders on the left. For context and background, see the following:

Business Insider with the latest polling coming from Iowa and New Hampshire:
http://www.businessinsider.com/polls-bernie-sanders-iowa-new-hampshire-2016-1

Online news program The Young Turks breaking down the Sanders candidacy:




From the Huffington Post, where Sanders is beating Trump in the latest poll by 13 points, 6 points more than Hillary Clinton:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-g...13-points-6-more-than-clinton-_b_8936840.html

 

[lisab]

Not to drag this off topic, but I've heard analysis suggesting that the problem is caused by an unintended consequence of Obama's attempts at pork barrel spending reduction. Pork barrel spending is part of how federal politicians get themselves re-elected, but it is also a negotiating tactic that helps grease compromises. With less of it, there is less incentive to compromise, which then also leaves the President with less room to compromise. Since this comes from Harry Reid - a member of his own party - I tend to give it some weight. I don't like pork and I don't like Reid (it would be nice if politicians would just be adults instead), so I'm not sure how to feel about that...

Read more here:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/12/opinion/zelizer-the-case-for-earmarks/

Interesting point.

 

[jtbell]

Proposals to build a border fence that mexico pays for or to shut down Muslim immigration are ridiculous and unrealistic, but the alternative (don't enforce border laws and keep the status quo in immigration regulations) are even more unpalatable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

 

[russ_watters]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

I'm not completely sure where you are going with that because you didn't elaborate, but politics is indeed often an art of false dilemmas and immigration is indeed such an issue. I'm not exactly sure who controls the narrative, but currently "immigration reform" is being treated as a singular thing (synonymous with amnesty - that would be false equivalency fallacy) that Democrats are for and Republicans are against.

 

[russ_watters]

I find the above point on Obama hard to swallow, given that I have never heard any speech that Obama has given where he specifically negatively portrays whites. Can you point me to a very specific example of this?

First of all, I disagree with Mark44 that the successful news outlets are really as "liberal" as portrayed...

I'll respond in more detail when I have time later, but I want to refer you back to the stated purpose of the thread: this thread is primarilu for Lisa to hear from Republicans why they think Trump is so popular. So it shouldn't be a debate. You don't have to agree with the opinions/perceptions being discussed, you just have to be aware that they exist and they matter to Republicans.

The liberal media thing has been done to death elsewhere on PF, so it shouldn't need to be discussed at all.

For Obama on race, since you say you'd never even heard of the idea that he could come across as anti-white, I will explain. I'll provide specifics later, but it is basically three things:
1. Obama goes into detain in his books about how he arrived at his racial identity. The short version is that he doesn't have to be black, that's a choice he made in large part due to animosity toward the white half of his ancestry.
2. His reactions toward the racial strife such as controversial police shooting have been primarily race based even in cases where race appears to have had no actual role.
3. Broader than #1 and #2, given his unique promise to trancend race and improve race relations, I blame him for the generally accepted fact (he mentioned it himself in the SOY speech) that relations got worse during his presidency.

I assume the anti-rich thing is self explanatory, since we'very discussed it before and the "99%" movement is an explicit us-vs-them attack on the 1% and the vague and much broader "rich".

 

[newjerseyrunner]

My belief from looking at the demographics that have very vocal Trump supporters is uncertainty. People react poorly when they feel like the world is changing too quickly, especially in ways that are forced upon them. Lots of Trump supporters are fundamentalist christians who prefer the oppression of homosexuals, and in the past few years, our society has moved past that, but the people who grew up with that hate coming from their religious upbringing are still around. They've also been taught that Christianity is superior to everything else and being forced to hear about other societies feels threatening to them, and with social media, reaction to social injustices that they like have provided a lot of bash-lash for the more backwards communities, this makes them feel under attack, a handful of Islamic terrorists is just easier to blame than accepting that their religion is wrong. Also, if you look at the economy and the unemployment, it's been getting steadily better over the Democrat's run, but not in certain areas. The problem is that people are told that their money problems stem from an unstable economy, they are lied to in order to hide the real issue which is a massive wealth redistribution. The US isn't worth less than it was 10 years ago, it's just that the worth of the lower class is less, so they're likely to be troubled.

I find it unlikely that he'll win the GOP nomination, his poll numbers are high, but only among a certain types of groups. I've seen very little support for him among moderate conservatives and non among liberals. Ohio and New Hampshire really matter and I just drove through NH, even in the most conservative areas, I saw very few Trump supporters.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I'll respond in more detail when I have time later, but I want to refer you back to the stated purpose of the thread: this thread is primarilu for Lisa to hear from Republicans why they think Trump is so popular. So it shouldn't be a debate. You don't have to agree with the opinions/perceptions being discussed, you just have to be aware that they exist and they matter to Republicans.

You are right in that I don't have to agree with the opinions/perceptions being discussed, and I am most certainly aware that they exist. What I am arguing is that these opinions/perceptions are not based on fact or logic.

The liberal media thing has been done to death elsewhere on PF, so it shouldn't need to be discussed at all.

Yes it has, and I disagree with the premise of the issue, but that is another debate which I won't rehash here.

For Obama on race, since you say you'd never even heard of the idea that he could come across as anti-white, I will explain. I'll provide specifics later, but it is basically three things:
1. Obama goes into detain in his books about how he arrived at his racial identity. The short version is that he doesn't have to be black, that's a choice he made in large part due to animosity toward the white half of his ancestry.
2. His reactions toward the racial strife such as controversial police shooting have been primarily race based even in cases where race appears to have had no actual role.
3. Broader than #1 and #2, given his unique promise to trancend race and improve race relations, I blame him for the generally accepted fact (he mentioned it himself in the SOY speech) that relations got worse during his presidency.

I assume the anti-rich thing is self explanatory, since we'very discussed it before and the "99%" movement is an explicit us-vs-them attack on the 1% and the vague and much broader "rich".

russ, let me rebut each of your 3 main points (I will not go into the anti-rich thing for the moment):

Point #1: Again, I look forward to your specific instances where he expressed animosity toward his white half (in past quotes he has spoken glowingly of both his mother and his maternal grandparents who have raised him in multicultural Hawaii). And as a multiracial individual myself, both Obama and I have at various times in our lives have explored and questioned about what our own racial identity is. I choose to identify myself as multiracial, but given the history of the US, his choosing to identify as black is not in any way can be seen as a repudiation of his white ancestry.

Point #2: If you are referring to the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, can you be so certain that the issue is not race based? At any rate, here is a quote from Obama on that matter with respect to the officer involved, Darren Wilson, reported in ABC News:

“The finding that was made [by the Department of Justice] was that it was not unreasonable to determine that there was not sufficient evidence to charge Officer [Darren] Wilson. That was an objective, thorough, independent federal investigation..."

“We may never know exactly what happened. But Officer Wilson like anybody else who is charged with a crime benefits from due process and a reasonable doubt standard. And if there is uncertainty about what happened then you can’t just charge them anyway just because what happened was tragic.”

I don't know about you, but the above quotes don't particularly sound race-based to me.

Point #3: This is the weakest argument you've made thus far for 2 reasons: (1) Is it really the case that race relations are worse now than they were in the (recent)past, or does it only appear that way? One could argue that the rise of social media makes racial tensions more visible to the public. (2) If for argument's sake that race relations have worsened in recent years, does it really make any sense at all to blame Obama, or any president for that matter? Frankly, my belief is that racial tensions are primarily the fault of the racism of the people involved, and if anything, one could argue that right-wingers in the US (e.g. commentators on Fox News, Trump, Cruz, Ann Coulter) have done far more of the provoking of racial tensions than Obama.

 

[mheslep]

I'd never vote for him

That's what I say, until the possibility of Trump v Sanders or indited Hillary comes up. What say you then?

 

[mheslep]

couldn't dream of a reason

Agree with most all of your post. And if its Trump v Hillary, or Sanders?

 

[Isaac0427]

Agree with most all of your post. And if its Trump v Hillary, or Sanders?

At that point, I'm kind of screwed either way. I would probably not pick America's poison. I don't think I could live with voting for Trump or Clinton, so if I had to choose, I'd pick sanders, ONLY because I trust him and I don't think he is a bad person. This has nothing to do with his policies. The same would go with Cruz, Huckabee, Carson or Santorum.

 

[Dotini]

And if its Trump v Hillary, or Sanders?

One could vote Libertarian, as will I, or you could spoil (deface) your ballot in protest.

 

[mheslep]

One could vote Libertarian, as will I, or you could spoil (deface) your ballot in protest.

Which is to choose whichever major party candidate is in the lead at the time.

 

[Dotini]

Which is to choose whichever major party candidate is in the lead at the time.

Not in my case. I enjoy living in the 7th Congressional District of the State of Washington, possibly the most liberal in the nation. I can vote my conscience and rest assured my vote makes effectively no difference to the outcome of the general election.

 

[mheslep]

Congressional district is irrelevant to US Presidential elections.

 

[Dotini]

Congressional district is irrelevant to US Presidential elections.

It's the state that matters.

 

[mheslep]

It's the state that matters.

Yes. Washington went GOP for Reagan twice, for Ford in '76, for Nixon in '60 and '72, for Ike in '56. Not so lucky since Reagan. Washington is not quite a Minnesota.

 

[mheslep]

He can't do long-term damage

I'm not so sure. The President defines the party, more than any other person or group, at least for some years after entering office. Once nominated and elected, the idea that somehow the President would is not truly representative of the GOP doesn't hold.

 

[mheslep]

I wonder if this Iowan has made a decision.

 

[lisab]

OK, so here's a summary of responses in this tread answering the question of why Trump is popular:

• He voices commonly held opinions, tells it like it is
• Resentment and a feeling of oppression
• He has a message of peace/no more conflict, he has charisma
• Anger, frustration, and dissatisfaction
• Worry about the influence of the very wealthy, and since he's rich he will not be unduly influenced by it
  
• A desire for a strong leader
• People are scared and want protection
• The media give him more attention, which feeds his popularity
• The way Trump communicates leads people think that Trump agrees with their views
  
• His popularity is a reaction to how political correctness silences dissent
  
• General dissent
• The world is changing too quickly

To all who posted - thank you for your thoughts and for taking the time to post.

So much to think about here. Two in particular give me pause: the way Trump communicates leads people to think they're in agreement, and that his popularity is a reaction to political correctness silencing dissent.

 

[Jbunn]

Lisab

To answer your question, Many Trump supporters don't have good critical thinking skills. For example, "build a wall" separating Mexico from the US. Rational people might ask; "How do most immigrants arrive? Via a visa, or sneaking in?", "How long is the border? How much wall have we built so far, and at what cost? How much remains and why?" "How do we fence the parts of the 1,800 mile Rio Grande that marks much of our border? Mountains?" "How much is the cost if we build a fence? And how much if we don't?"

When you answer these questions we realize that building the "Trump fence" is not economically feasible, nor will it stop immigration. Not enough people have the critical thinking to work out the answers, and our media is not helping.

The great southern wall for 50 billion dollars will be immediately followed by purchase of the great southern ladders for $50 bucks at Home Depot...

 

[Silicon Waffle]

Well I have sort of a trolling question, almost ! Instead of building such a wall, why not invest the money to hire more police officers and guards around the border to keep everything in control ? That on one hand can help resolve the illegal immigration issue *in part* and on the other can create more jobs for people, not necessarily the officers alone. You can build *walls*. But without guards, troops to watch at many more checkpoints that also need to be built up, having walls or fence at the border doesn't make sense anymore.