News Do You Know Why Trump is Popular?

[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.

 

[p1l0t]

El Chapo isn't worried about walls anyway haha

 

[Student100]

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.

It might be helpful to add: He really isn't all that popular. His polling is mostly due to some 14 odd other Republican candidates splitting the vote, and no clear republican message. His favorability ratings are abysmal. The only candidate with a net positive currently is Bernie.

Anyway, I don't put too much stock into political polls myself to begin with. I worry about Ted Cruz more right now, he is scarier than Trump.

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.

You're trashing peoples critical thinking skills - people you've never met because they don't agree with you. Further, you obviously don't pay attention to the politicians you're criticizing. Trump has repeatedly said he would have mexico pay for the wall. Is this realistic? I don't know. Mexico benefits greatly from trade, so if a lucrative trade deal hinged on them finishing the wall, it would probably get done.

Further, many "immigrants" (See border patrol apprehensions: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...rehensions-of-mexicans-fall-to-historic-lows/) arrive illegally by crossing the border, not just visas overstays. That's the problem they're trying to fix with "the wall." Is it dumb, sure I think so, but I also see the reason people are upset.

 

[mheslep]

Many Trump supporters don't have good critical thinking skills.

Add this to the list, condescending attacks on the voters instead of the candidate. I suspect such is heard as, "you can not decide who to support with your vote; you will be told who you may or may not support." Received in this way, many might well support the most combative, most bombastic, in your face candidate. Who might that be? Applause to Lisab's OP, for (mostly) not throwing yet more fuel on Trump's "believe me, it'll be great" fire.

 

[Jbunn]

It might be helpful to add: He really isn't all that popular. His polling is mostly due to some 14 odd other Republican candidates splitting the vote, and no clear republican message. His favorability ratings are abysmal. The only candidate with a net positive currently is Bernie.

Anyway, I don't put too much stock into political polls myself to begin with. I worry about Ted Cruz more right now, he is scarier than Trump.
You're trashing peoples critical thinking skills - people you've never met because they don't agree with you. Further, you obviously don't pay attention to the politicians you're criticizing. Trump has repeatedly said he would have mexico pay for the wall. Is this realistic? I don't know. Mexico benefits greatly from trade, so if a lucrative trade deal hinged on them finishing the wall, it would probably get done.

Further, many "immigrants" (See border patrol apprehensions: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...rehensions-of-mexicans-fall-to-historic-lows/) arrive illegally by crossing the border, not just visas overstays. That's the problem they're trying to fix with "the wall." Is it dumb, sure I think so, but I also see the reason people are upset.

Student100,

When you look at the demographics of Republican support for Trump, he is the strongest among lower income Republicans, and less educated Republicans. As education level goes up, support shifts from Trump to other Republican candidates. My personal opinion is that more educated, more affluent Republican voters do a better job at identifying "bullshit" (google "bullshit detection"). I referred to this as critical thinking, but it's not an attempt to trash people I don't know. Half of people are below average. That's not a dig, just a fact (and a lame joke).

Trump has indeed said that he would have Mexico pay for the wall. Now ask yourself... What power does the president have to demand another country build a wall to protect our interests? Have you considered that Mexico might just say no? Then what? HOW exactly is he going to do this? You are projecting your own problem solving skills with things like "trade deal". Trump didn't say that. He hasn't said anything at all about how to do it. But let's be clear. Mexico is NOT going to pay for a wall. The situation as is is working just fine from their perspective, and the last thing they want is South and Central American refugees trapped in Mexico by a northern wall.

I suggest you read a bit about Sagan's baloney detection kit and apply it to some of Trump's statements.

https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/

 

[Student100]

Actually, Trump did say that.

Do you have any stats for the first claim?

 

[Jbunn]

Actually, Trump did say that.

Do you have any stats for the first claim?

Yes, but you should learn to look things up. Regardless, here's one.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-donald-trump-support-20151211-story.html

 

[Student100]

Yes, but you should learn to look things up. Regardless, here's one.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-donald-trump-support-20151211-story.html

I see a survey about how trumps lead among Republican voters with a college degree or more is smaller.

But among those with a college degree or more, Trump’s lead is much smaller. He has 21% of the voters in that group, compared with 19% for Carson, 13% for Rubio, 9% for Cruz and 6% for Bush.

I don't see how this meshes with:

When you look at the demographics of Republican support for Trump, he is the strongest among lower income Republicans, and less educated Republicans

It appears he is also strong among well educated Republicans (leads the demographic and all). I also didn't see anything about wage earnings there, so that's still a dubious claim. Is he strongest among the electorate without college degrees? The survey would suggest that, but then there is the whole:

As education level goes up, support shifts from Trump to other Republican candidates. My personal opinion is that more educated, more affluent Republican voters do a better job at identifying "bullshit" (google "bullshit detection"). I referred to this as critical thinking, but it's not an attempt to trash people I don't know. Half of people are below average. That's not a dig, just a fact (and a lame joke).

Which makes it seem like those who're educated don't support trump. Clearly this is not the case according the survey. Anyway, I don't think you can equate college equation with "critical thinking skills", as though people who didn't graduate college are somehow less capable of intelligent thought. What are you referring to when you say below average? Below average at what? That last bit makes no sense.

 

[meBigGuy]

My very strong opinions follow, I'm just saying it like I think it is:
My country is full of racist bigots who like what Trump says. Simple as that, really. No tolerance for other cultures, other religions, other races, even women.
The underclasses are afraid someone else will get a better deal, or get a leg up on them.
It amazes me how people have been programmed to vote against the very things that would improve their lives.
Trump acts like he represents all that anger, and states it disrespectfully, and that resonates with the angry and misinformed.

 

[Student100]

My very strong opinions follow, I'm just saying it like I think it is:
My country is full of racist bigots who like what Trump says. Simple as that, really. No tolerance for other cultures, other religions, other races, even women.

The US is pretty tolerant, as far as nations go: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/

I lived in Japan for a few years, far more xenophobic than the US.

It amazes me how people have been programmed to vote against the very things that would improve their lives.

What're people voting against that would improve their quality of life? If not voting Democratic is a vote against improving your life... that's a bit of a stretch to say the least, don't you think?

 

[russ_watters]

It amazes me how people have been programmed to vote against the very things that would improve their lives.

I read an article recently that describes how Democrats and Republicans think very differently from each other, which makes it hard for them to understand each other. You describe very well the Democratic way of thinking, but apparently don't really have any idea what drives Republicans. The opposite of voting for things that support one's self interest is voting for the good of the country. It's a much more noble aim than you give them (us) credit for. And when really contrasted against each other, the obviousness of the Democratic worldview becomes much less so.