News Do You Know Why Trump is Popular?

[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.

 

[p1l0t]

It's because we are a country divided. Fueled by hate the two-party regime that's been in power since the 1800s will always reign. People feed into the back-and-forth and they love it in some kind of weird S&M fashion almost. It's never going to change unless we change the voting system to end "First Past the Post." Good luck with getting anyone who is in power because of it to vote against it though. And anyway nobody REALLY wants real change they just want to make a choice on red or blue like they are betting on a horse regardless of what they stand for.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

I also applaud Lisa's OP: rather than assume people who disagree with you are crazy, racist idiots, ask them (or others who think similarly) what drives them to think the way they do.

 

[StatGuy2000]

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.

russ, two questions for you:

1. Does it really make sense to suggest that voting against one's self interest is necessarily the opposite of voting for the good of the country? Is this not contingent on what particular issue is being voted on?

2. What makes you think that Democratic voters don't believe that they are voting for the good of the country as well? One could argue that what Democratic voters think is "good for the country" is different from what Republican voters think.

 

[einswine]

IMO the root of Trump's appeal is his angry simplistic approach to the intractable or nearly intractable difficulties facing the middle class. He has easy answers to problems that appeal to child-level analysis. (http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/10/21/analysis-donald-trump-talks-to-voters-at-a-fourth-grade-level/)

The white middle class is being destroyed both materially and emotionally by politico-economic and technological forces that they don't understand and they are stressed, afraid, distraught, and angry ( Recent decline in life expectancy of the white middle class as best evidence.). Brawn, gumption and being a white “American” are no longer enough to earn a comfortable wage, something felt to be their birthright, and so rage is rising.
(http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/11/boomers-deaths-pnas/413971/)

Yes, Trump is part of their problem. And that's the irony. The right, in its most elevated garb, is the siren's song of Aristotelian logic applied to non-Aristotelian categories. Percolate this down to fourth grade analysis, add fearful anger and you get Trump. And a perfect match for one of the least enlightened, chauvinistic segments of the US population which unwittingly embrace many of the agents of their discontents.

Not logical, but all too human.

 

[CalcNerd]

Sadly, there is no real political party for moderates. Both the Republicans and Democrats are extremists (on many of their non-relevant issues anyway). And to win in the primaries means you have to appeal to the base constituents of the party. Does that base represent an electable commodity? Very seldom, so the usual formula is that after you win the primary, you have to adopt the mainstream issues and assure the majority of the population you are really a reasonable fellow (lady), and have now begun to see some of the merits of the other sides arguments (whether you do or not, you need those other lefties, commies, neocons, whatever extra votes where you can get them).
.
Extremists HATE that, and Donald seems to be straight forward and uncompromising and is telling his base he won't bend! That makes him very attractive to elect (for the right wingers). Once he gets that nomination (no guarantee, the republicans have a pretty full clown car), he will then probably have to back peddle (or he has zero chance, the polls show him losing to pretty much any democrat). And Donald has proven that he is a real potential candidate, so I suspect he will quickly grasp (whatever he truly believes, we will not find out until after he is in office) new views and spout off whatever it takes to contrast himself against the democratic nomine, yet be reasonable enough to win.
.
So, while I don't really know who will win this election, I can predict the LOSERS! Us!

 

[Dr_Zinj]

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.

Lisab:

The best analysis for Trump's success to date, and for his predicted continued success and election to the Presidency, come from Scott Adams, the creator of the Dilbert comic. (http://blog.dilbert.com) He's been predicting a Trump victory ever since The Donald placed his hat in the ring. And he bases his predictions on Trump being a master of verbal persuasion far and above the capabilities of any of the other candidates.

 

[p1l0t]

Sadly, there is no real political party for moderates. Both the Republicans and Democrats are extremists (on many of their non-relevant issues anyway). And to win in the primaries means you have to appeal to the base constituents of the party. Does that base represent an electable commodity? Very seldom, so the usual formula is that after you win the primary, you have to adopt the mainstream issues and assure the majority of the population you are really a reasonable fellow (lady), and have now begun to see some of the merits of the other sides arguments (whether you do or not, you need those other lefties, commies, neocons, whatever extra votes where you can get them).
.
Extremists HATE that, and Donald seems to be straight forward and uncompromising and is telling his base he won't bend! That makes him very attractive to elect (for the right wingers). Once he gets that nomination (no guarantee, the republicans have a pretty full clown car), he will then probably have to back peddle (or he has zero chance, the polls show him losing to pretty much any democrat). And Donald has proven that he is a real potential candidate, so I suspect he will quickly grasp (whatever he truly believes, we will not find out until after he is in office) new views and spout off whatever it takes to contrast himself against the democratic nomine, yet be reasonable enough to win.
.
So, while I don't really know who will win this election, I can predict the LOSERS! Us!

#endFirstPastThePost

 

[Neandethal00]

"why Trump is so popular" ?

The answer is simpler than you think.
Look around you, look around the world.
I'm guessing you read the news daily, not just main stream media,
but online alternative media also. It's a mess.
US economy is not as good as government says, middle class in the USA has
almost evaporated. Wealth is concentrated among 1% of the population (all politicians are
bought by them).
Immigration problem in USA and in Europe.
We started a war 13 years ago, there is no end to the war in sight, in fact
we are ready to open more war fronts, which basically invites terrorists into homeland.

Average Americans are desperate for a change. Career politicians will change nothing, last half century
is the proof. The situation is so bad we are ready to forgive the outrageous flaws of Trump.
Just for a change by a non-politician, an outsider, someone who can not be bought( may be a hope against hope) by 1% wealthy.

Do these reasons answer OP's question?

Disclaimer: I'm Independent. I do not vote and will not vote in 2016.

 

[Devon Fletcher]

Trump's 'popularity' is largely driven by his overt xenophobia, and taps into the issues that trouble many in the GOP. Islam, Mexicans, BHO.
The political system in the USA is fatally flawed, with the real power being wielded by the wealthy donors, who determine where the campaign funds will go.
The end result is an oligarchy, and the real issues (inequality, climate change) are ignored, as the people are swept along in a frenzy of hate.
Candidates must adopt any number of crazy positions, with regard to religion, immigration, science, guns etc., to have a chance of getting the votes.
When some 40% of Americans believe mankind was created by a character from Bronze-age mythology, every candidate is obliged to pretend he believes too.
Democracy is doomed to demagoguery.

 

[Bernie G]

Rush Limbaugh says Trump is popular because he tells other people to go to hell. Like most politicians he is a good salesman and caters to people.

 

[BillTre]

The best site for voter analysis is Nate Silver's 538 site at ESPN (http://fivethirtyeight.com/). 538 is number of electoral votes in presidential elections.
It is basically a sports/politics/other stuff site. Much of the site has to do with advanced stats to determine odds, based on their models.
These are Moneyball or Sabermetric type people, if you know what that is.
For their political models, they aggregate different polls, weight them based on their methods and past accuracy, and add some other stuff.
In the last two presidential elections they got 49 out of 50 and 50 out of 50 states right.

They have several explanations for the Trump phenomenon, some are:
1) Trump is very good at getting and keeping himself in the news. This correlates with popularity in polls and it does not cost him money.
2) Polls earlier than January are not very indicative of voting because lots of people have not made final decisions on whom they will vote for.
3) The Republican party has several divisions (moderate, establishment, christian conservative, libertarian, and tea party). Two of the most important are the establishment wing (wealthy donors and pro-business) and the tea party. The Tea Party is where most of Trump's support comes from. Tea Party members have a lot of problems with the establishment wing. In the past, the establishment guys (who have controlled the party for quite a while) has made promises to Tea Party types (prior to the tea party's existence) about things that they either did not (during Bush2) or could not deliver (after Bush2), which has understandably pissed them off. Trump is playing on things that appeal to their already established feeling about things.

Trump's support within the GOP is also pretty limited. Although many Republicans would vote for him, there are many who would definitely not vote for, giving him a low favorability rating (those who would vote for him minus those who would never vote for him).

WRT Republicans feeling oppressed: It is interesting that someone said Fox news is for Republicans. I feel Fox is important in building up these false feelings of oppression. These feeling work to keep them isolated from competing, more fact based influences.

My Impartial Media analysis:
Fox news extreme right wing, largely to get people to vote Republican
most major media: Owned by a handful of large corporations that are basically pretty conservative. This (IMHO) flows down to the news they show which is center of right.
There is little or no real liberal news.

Obama seems middle of the road to me.
The Republican party has drifted to the right for 30 or 40 years and is pretty far right now. It has left many older Republicans behind and now calls them RINOs (Republicans In Name Only).
Sanders is much more liberal than Obama.

 

[russ_watters]

• He voices commonly held opinions, tells it like it is
• ...
• The way Trump communicates leads people think that Trump agrees with their views...

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.

If you got those from me and since you still have questions, I'll try to clarify:
I think that people in general hear what they want to hear, so if they are pre-disposed to disagreeing with him - because they are democrats - they will judge him more harshly than warranted. And on the other side, Republicans will tend to find ways to agree with him. Case in point:

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.

Right, so given that Trump hasn't provided any details, that leaves us to speculate. Democrats speculate about how it could be impossible and Republicans speculate about how it could be possible. This is the way it works with pretty much all campaign promises. They are pretty much all vague and under-formed. On the other side of the coin, when Obama was running for his first term, we had some lively discussions here about his promise to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in his first 100 days. You wouldn't believe how many people just took it for granted that it would happen because he said it would.

 

[russ_watters]

1. Does it really make sense to suggest that voting against one's self interest is necessarily the opposite of voting for the good of the country? Is this not contingent on what particular issue is being voted on?

2. What makes you think that Democratic voters don't believe that they are voting for the good of the country as well? One could argue that what Democratic voters think is "good for the country" is different from what Republican voters think.

I found the article:
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/13/10759874/republicans-democrats-different
An excerpt:

I was caught off guard by how specific and personal Democratic voters’ issues tended to be. One woman told me she had lost a job because she had to take care of a sick relative and wanted paid family leave. Another woman told me her insurance stopped covering a certain medication that had grown too expensive and she liked how Clinton and Sanders talked about lowering drug prices...

By contrast, Republican voters tend to be excited by more abstract issues: One of the most common answers I get from Cruz voters when I ask about their leading concern is "the Constitution." There are fewer "I have a specific problem in my own life, and I’d like the government to do x about it" responses.

One thing I disagreed with in the article is I think the question on compromise is too vague. Broad philosophical/moral principles are by nature non-negotiable whereas "lowering drug prices" is highly negotiable. So based on the things they consider important, Republicans are less likely to be willing to negotiate. But find a philosophical moral principle that Democrats care about and they will be quite unwilling to negotiate also: try environmentalism, for example.

Anyway, for your questions:
For #1, I didn't suggest it was "necessary", I just said it is. But sure, different issues weigh differently. The statements were about general trends.
For #2, I didn't say Democratic voters don't think their choices are good for the country - I'm sure they do. But based on the tilts, it's more that Democrats think "what is good for me is good for the country" whereas Republicans think "what is good for the country is good for me".

 

[russ_watters]

When some 40% of Americans believe mankind was created by a character from Bronze-age mythology, every candidate is obliged to pretend he believes too.
Democracy is doomed to demagoguery.

Given that religion has been declining recently and for the entire history of the country has been higher than it is today, that seems at face value to be a backwards judgement.

 

[meBigGuy]

Given that religion has been declining recently and for the entire history of the country has been higher than it is today, that seems at face value to be a backwards judgement.

Wow --- no logic there at all. The original statement stands. Maybe there were more "divine creation believers" in the past, but that doesn't change how many there are now nor how scary that is.

 

[lisab]

On the other side of the coin, when Obama was running for his first term, we had some lively discussions here about his promise to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in his first 100 days. You wouldn't believe how many people just took it for granted that it would happen because he said it would.

First hundred days?! D'OH! Last hundred days is what I meant!



In all seriousness, I take campaign promises in this vein with a pinch of salt -- not because I think the candidate is (necessarily) lying, but because Candidate X does not have all the information that President X will have. So, he/she changes course, because of new information. I expect this kind of shift in all intelligent people: if you get new information, you must be able to change your stance. But here's the important point: the campaign promise gives me insight into what this candidate might actually do, and who they might be beholden to.

So, I expect and allow some course corrections once the candidate becomes president. These I see as 'honest' mistakes.

Some issues are not in this category, though. Abortion will never be made illegal, no matter what the candidate promises. Similarly, a single-payer health plan will never happen. And that wall? Yeah that ain't happening. Promises like these are made simply to get votes.

It has taken me several election cycles to develop this point of view. I guess some people call that "getting old".

 

[Student100]

Wow --- no logic there at all. The original statement stands. Maybe there were more "divine creation believers" in the past, but that doesn't change how many there are now nor how scary that is.

Lets actually look at some numbers, its helpful sometimes:

http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/

A little over 70 percent of those surveyed self identified as some various form of Christian. Since there's no real demographic here on creationism (if that's what's being argued here, it's kind of ambiguous what exactly is frighting people), we can use the response on a belief in evolution. 42% of Christians surveyed believe humankind has always existed as it is. That's slightly under 30 percent of the population in the US. As an aside, it's interesting that the number of Catholics who believe we've always existed as we are is as high as it is. Especially since the Pope weighed in on evolution years ago, and several catholic scientists worked on the theory. Lot of unorthodoxy going on there.

Anyway, the belief also extends to the unaffiliated, agnostics, and atheists, although in much smaller numbers. The belief also appears in the other regions and in the "nothing particular group."

Over 40% of the population for a disbelief in evolution (some lower number for young Earth creationism, no doubt) is possible, the important take away I believe is that Christians by no means have a monopoly on this belief.

I also don't understands what's so frightening about others beliefs, anyway.

 

[russ_watters]

Wow --- no logic there at all. The original statement stands. Maybe there were more "divine creation believers" in the past, but that doesn't change how many there are now nor how scary that is.

Hum? The claim was that the high fraction is causing a decline in our civilization. Since the fraction is declining it should be causing a rise in civilization.

It's like claiming that pollution is declining and therefore more people are getting sick!

 

[Jbunn]

I see a survey about how trumps lead among Republican voters with a college degree or more is smaller.
I don't see how this meshes with:
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:
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.

Student,
Do you not accept that saying "But among those with a college degree or more, Trump’s lead is much smaller." and "support for Trump is the strongest among less educated Republicans" is saying the same thing? Both statements note the inverse correlation between education and support for Trump.

If you're curious about the link between education level and income level, this has been well documented. Take a quick look at this graph. http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm

While there are geniuses out there digging ditches, and some people with advanced degrees that can't find their way home, they are exceptions. The promise of education attracts the curious, intelligent minds who are trying to self-actualize. It attracts flexible personalities that have rigor for self directed study, and the ability to switch between visual, kinesthetic, and aural learning styles. It sharpens minds by exposure to new ideas, and being able to defend our thoughts. I do indeed equate education level with critical thinking skills, all other things being equal, on average (actual mileage may vary, see your dealer for details). The job market also makes the same connection I do, which is why we see a correlation between education level and pay.

Ah. "half are below average". It is a literary allusion. You see, in the town of Lake Wobegone, it is said that "All the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average". I'm observing that all of the children really are not above average.

Thank you for the gift of your time. Best Regards, j

 

[Jbunn]

Hum? The claim was that the high fraction is causing a decline in our civilization. Since the fraction is declining it should be causing a rise in civilization.

It's like claiming that pollution is declining and therefore more people are getting sick!

Russ,

Actually, no. While the number may declining, they vote in larger numbers, and have been effectively mobilized by the Republican party beginning with the Moral Majority era. As one of the posters pointed out, when a sizable fraction of the people believe there is a secret invisible man in the sky, it's not politically expedient to state that he does not exist.

In my own case, strong bronze age superstitious beliefs lose my vote. I can see how superstitions people take the reverse position.

 

[Student100]

Student,
Do you not accept that saying "But among those with a college degree or more, Trump’s lead is much smaller." and "support for Trump is the strongest among less educated Republicans" is saying the same thing? Both statements note the inverse correlation between education and support for Trump.

I accept what you said was a fallacy by omission, Trump does very well with those who haven't been to college, but he also leads with those who've some college, and with those who have a college degree or more.

After digging a bit further through the survey monkey study you posted, Trump lead every demographic except Hispanic voters (he finished third, behind - surprise - Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush.) I think it's safe to say that Trump does very well with a wide variety of demographics in the Republican party, and his support can't be constrained to those who aren't educated.

I also don't accept that's there a link between being rational and education or income level. We'll have to disagree.

Cheers.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ,

Actually, no. While the number may declining, they vote in larger numbers, and have been effectively mobilized by the Republican party beginning with the Moral Majority era.

Jbunn, "they vote in large numbers" glosses over the fact that the "large numbers" are down from everyone.

As one of the posters pointed out, when a sizable fraction of the people believe there is a secret invisible man in the sky, it's not politically expedient to state that he does not exist.

And I'm pointing out that historically that belief has both been universal not had a substantial/direct impact on politics/decision making, so it is mistake to over-state its relevance.

 

[einswine]

Some issues are not in this category, though. Abortion will never be made illegal, no matter what the candidate promises. Similarly, a single-payer health plan will never happen. And that wall? Yeah that ain't happening. Promises like these are made simply to get votes.

It has taken me several election cycles to develop this point of view. I guess some people call that "getting old".

Didn't vote in but remember the Eisenhower-Stevenson race. Ten years ago I would have said gay marriage would never happen in my life time. I suspect technologies' non-linear rise and deep penetration of youth culture is promoting rapid cultural adoption of new, or at least different ideas and standards. Though I applaud increased acceptance of diversity I see no inherent reason this process of rapid cultural change should always work for the good of humanity. I do have hope for single payer medical coverage in the relatively near future if not in my lifetime. At the same time one or two more conservative S.C. justices could end legal abortion in the US for at least a generation.

My two cents.

 

[Jbunn]

I accept what you said was a fallacy by omission, Trump does very well with those who haven't been to college, but he also leads with those who've some college, and with those who have a college degree or more.

After digging a bit further through the survey monkey study you posted, Trump lead every demographic except Hispanic voters (he finished third, behind - surprise - Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush.) I think it's safe to say that Trump does very well with a wide variety of demographics in the Republican party, and his support can't be constrained to those who aren't educated.

I also don't accept that's there a link between being rational and education or income level. We'll have to disagree.

Cheers.

What you're saying does not make sense. "Trump does very well with those who haven't been to college, but he also leads with those who've some college, and with those who have a college degree or more."

The chart is not showing absolute numbers. It's showing percentages. Take a sample of one hundred typical supporters for each of the 5 candidates. Group them by education level. Count the individuals in each group for each candidate. The average Trump voter has a lower education level compared to voters for the other candidates. Or so the survey data shows.

Colleges give academic achievement tests to filter the students they will accept. Some colleges are extremely stringent, and the coursework exceptionally difficult. Society refers to their graduates as our "best and brightest", and the market rewards them as such. You take the opposite position? There is no correlation between intelligence and education level? Please explain what data lead you to this conclusion.

 

[Evo]

Oh dear

 

[p1l0t]

Oh dear

Yeah freedom! USA USA!

 

[Jbunn]

Oh dear

Oh, my...

 

[Dotini]

Oh dear

Schmaltzy, but the other candidates will be gnashing their teeth in envy.

 

[Evo]

Schmaltzy, but the other candidates will be gnashing their teeth in envy.

Yeah, it's a catchy tune, you've got cute little girls dressed in red, white and blue, what's not to love? Trump can put on a show.

 

[Dotini]

Yeah, it's a catchy tune, you've got cute little girls dressed in red, white and blue, what's not to love? Trump can put on a show.

The original tune and lyrics of the patriotic WWI song "Over There" were by George M. Cohan. Here is the backstory of the USA Freedom Kids and the Official Donald Trump Rag.
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-usa-freedom-kids-2016-1

 

[Evo]

The original tune and lyrics of the patriotic WWI song "Over There" were by George M. Cohan. Here is the backstory of the USA Freedom Kids and the Official Donald Trump Rag.
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-usa-freedom-kids-2016-1

Thanks Dotini. It just gets more frightening.

It's time that we stop treating Trump as a novelty that will fade away and as a real threat. But then the rest of the GOP, Evangelicals and bible thumpers that want to dictate to us how to live our lives by their moral code.

Sorry, I am going off topic from Trump.

 

[Dotini]

Sorry, I am going off topic from Trump.

Not at all.

Secular humanism is one of the greatest achievements of our modern culture, is somewhat threatened from several quarters at the moment, and you are right to be concerned. However - and I hope this makes you feel slightly better - Donald J. Trump (a former Democrat but still favoring women's rights) seems to me to be less of a threat to our prevailing ideology than some of the other Republican candidates. Perhaps optimistically, I feel his bark is worse than his bite.

 

[Astronuc]

Sarah Palin endorses Trump. Wow, with that endorsement, it's all over!



Cleese on Trump


Facepalm

 

[Astronuc]

Hold your horses! Conservatives unite to condemn Donald Trump as a “menace”
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/conservatives-unite-to-condemn-donald-trump-as-044852817.html

. . . .
“Trump is a menace to American conservatism who would take the work of generations and trample it underfoot in behalf of a populism as heedless and crude as the Donald himself,” the magazine declared.

National Review also collected essays from 22 conservative leaders who offered their own reasons for opposing Trump’s candidacy. The names ranged from former Fox News star Glenn Beck to former U.S. Attorneys Edwin Meese and Michael Mukasey to prominent Southern Baptist leader Russell Moore to online provocateur Erick Erickson, the founder of the conservative blog RedState.
. . . .

Well, maybe popular isn't the right word.

 

[mheslep]

former U.S. Attorneys ... and Michael Mukasey to

AG Mukasey is making the rounds. He nominated frmr Sec Clinton for an orange jumpsuit yesterday.
Clinton’s Emails: A Criminal Charge Is Justified

 

[WWGD]

Thanks Dotini. It just gets more frightening.

It's time that we stop treating Trump as a novelty that will fade away and as a real threat. But then the rest of the GOP, Evangelicals and bible thumpers that want to dictate to us how to live our lives by their moral code.

Sorry, I am going off topic from Trump.

His popularity outside of the Conservative camp: Blacks, Women, Democrats in general, is very low, without a substantial percent of votes from it, he cannot win a national election. The majority of voters are not ideologues, so it is difficult for radical nuts Left or Right to win an election.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," Trump said
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/23/politics/donald-trump-shoot-somebody-support/index.html

 

[Psinter]

Do You Know Why Trump is Popular?

My best shot at this question is that anything that causes different points of views and controversial heated debates is and will always be popular. Something that is viewed as a super-mega obvious immoral, unethical or bad point of view in the eyes of some people will always be popular because a lot feel indignation and give people a lot to talk about between themselves because maybe they try to make it look like they are good-Samaritans by pointing at the bad traits of others. Like: "Let me show off and show how moral I am by pointing at the obvious immoral things that another person said." Something like that I think is the mechanism of that kind of popularity.

Not that I agree that this kind of things should be popular, but I guess that makes me a minority maybe? In resume, my opinion is: anything that causes different points of views and controversial heated debates is and will always be popular. EDIT: Conflict is popular.

 

[Astronuc]

Trump Says He Could 'Shoot Somebody' and Still Maintain Support
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...shoot-somebody-still-maintain-support-n502911

"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, okay, and I wouldn't lose any voters, okay?" Trump said at a rally in Sioux Center, Iowa as the audience laughed. "It's, like, incredible."

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Trump Says He Could 'Shoot Somebody' and Still Maintain Support

Getting a bit of a God complex?