News Do You Know Why Trump is Popular?

[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?

 

[Devon Fletcher]

An interesting piece on the politics of fear in the USA:
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35382599

 

[meBigGuy]

We live in a propaganda state, professionally managed by media moguls and marketing experts. For the most part people think what they are emotionally manipulated to think, through materialistic persuasion, the politics of fear, etc etc etc. It all started with the Committee for Public Information (Creel Commission) formed by Wilson to get us into WWI. The art of emotional manipulation was honed to a fine art and those professionals went on to the private sector. "There are lifeless truths and vital lies…The force of an idea lies in its inspirational value. It matters very little whether it is true or false." Arthur Bullard to Woodrow Wilson. The American public is raised and programmed (me included) to be responsive to these emotional tactics. This talk outlines the history (but will be too radical for some here).
Any serious student of propaganda will understand the significance of the Creel commission.

Trump very effectively taps into the emotional sensitivities of certain Americans. The truth or falsehood of what is said is of no concern. People are genetically predisposed to finding patterns and filtering perceived data to fit those patterns they are comfortable with. We are all guilty of that, we can't help it.

 

[Rick21383]

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

Add this one to the list of failed "turning points" of Trump's campaign implosion:

March 18: upon learning that Donald Trump planned on launching an exploratory committee, the Washington Post declared him “as serious a candidate as Cherunda Lynn Fox,” a no-name candidate, and assured America that he “is not actually going to run seriously for president.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/03/18/donald-trump-promises-to-become-as-serious-a-2016-candidate-as-cherunda-lynn-fox/

April 22: Tufts University Professor Daniel Drezner wrote an “open memo” to Donald Trump calling his efforts a “faux-run,” and Trump a “nutjob,” before teasing that he should simply run as a Democrat. http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/22/a-very-important-memo-to-donald-trump/

April 28: after Trump tweeted, “Our great African American President hasn’t exactly had a positive impact on the thugs who are so happily and openly destroying Baltimore!” the Washington Post emphasized, “you can yell at Donald Trump and he will go away,” assured that this “racist” would disappear quickly. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2015/04/28/donald-trump-said-something-donald-trump-is-easy-baltimore-is-hard/

June 16: In his announcement Trump explains, “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/06/16/full-text-donald-trump-announces-a-presidential-bid/

June 30: In the aftermath of Trump’s marks, NBCUniversal, Univision, and Macy’s, among others, begin ending their relationships with Trump. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/donald-trump-bad-businessman/397517/

July 1: Donald Trump explains in an interview with Don Lemon, “Well if you look at the statistics of people coming, you look at the statistics on rape, on crime, on everything coming in illegally into this country it’s mind-boggling! If you go to Fusion, you will see a story: About 80% of the women coming in, you know who owns Fusion? Univision! Go to Fusion and pick up the stories on rape. It’s unbelievable when you look at what’s going on. So all I’m doing is telling the truth. . . . Well, somebody’s doing the raping, Don! I mean somebody’s doing it! Who’s doing the raping? Who’s doing the raping?” he asked. http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/01/politics/donald-trump-immigrants-raping-comments/

July 2: Alan Rappeport at the New York Times declares that the “backlash” has begun for Trump and the entire Republican part. http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/02/today-in-politics-a-backlash-costs-trump-and-possibly-republicans/

July 7: In the continued aftermath of Trump’s comments, deals with ESPN and the PGA, among others, begin to fall through. http://perezhilton.com/2015-07-07-espn-donald-trump-golf-club-espy-celebrity-golf-classic-pga-golf-grand-slam/

July 17: Donald Trump mocks John McCain, noting, “I like people who weren’t captured,” explaining “He’s not a war hero.” http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/trump-attacks-mccain-i-like-people-who-werent-captured-120317.html

July 18: Nate Cohn at the New York Times declared this Trump’s “turning point,” the beginning of the end of his campaign. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/21/upshot/the-trump-campaigns-turning-point.html

August 6: Nate Silver provides Trump’s “Six Stages of Doom” and gives him a 2% chance of winning the Republican nomination. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trumps-six-stages-of-doom/

August 7: immediately following the presidential debate, Donald Trump remarks about how “off base” Megyn Kelly was in her questions, noting that he saw “blood coming out of her wherever,” she was “off base,” a “lightweight,” and “overrated.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/07/trump-says-foxs-megyn-kelly-had-blood-coming-out-of-her-wherever/

August 7: Erick Erickson at RedState disinvited Trump from the RedState Gathering, effectively excluding him from a roster full of serious Republican candidates. http://www.redstate.com/2015/08/07/i-have-disinvited-donald-trump-to-the-redstate-gathering/

August 8: Trump fires his longtime advisor Roger Stone. Stone clarifies that he resigned because he viewed the campaign as increasingly unreliable. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/sources-roger-stone-quit-wasnt-fired-by-donald-trump-in-campaign-shakeup-121177.html

August 11: Pundits note that Trump appears to be slipping in poll position after debates, suggesting that honeymoon is over and collapse is imminent. http://hotair.com/archives/2015/08/11/uh-oh-trump-down-nine-points-after-debate-in-new-rasmussen-national-poll/

August 19: Risking his job, an illegal immigrant working at a Trump hotel speaks out against Trump in an interview for "NewLeftMedia," which gets picked up by the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/20/nyregion/in-video-immigrant-worker-at-trump-hotel-criticizes-donald-trumps-views.html

August 19: Lambasted over his use of the offensive term "anchor babies," Trump shuts down a reporter who challenges the use, rejecting the use of a "politically correct" alternative. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-tom-llamas-anchor-babies

August 21: After a couple of Trump supporters beat up a homeless man in Boston, Trump answers, "The people following me are very passionate." Rolling Stone declared that Trump was no longer "funny," signalling the downfall of his campaign. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/donald-trump-just-stopped-being-funny-20150821

August 22: The Guardian breaks down early polls and explains why Donald Trump won't win. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/22/donald-trump-wont-win-republican-presidential-nomination

August 25: Univision's Jorge Ramos interrupts a press conference to ask Donald Trump a question, and Trump's staff physically ejects him from the scene. http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/25/politics/donald-trump-megyn-kelly-iowa-rally/

August 26: Jonathan Chait at the New Yorker explains that Donald Trump will lose because he's "crazy. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/08/donald-trump-is-going-to-lose-because-hes-crazy.html

September 1: Bloomberg columnist Jonathan Bernstein notes that Ben Carson has a chance at knocking off Donald Trump, if only the media will "help" him. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-ben-carson-donald-trump-iowa-20150901-story.html

September 2: FOX News host Brit Hume explains to Megyn Kelly that it appears other candidates have begun gaining ground on Trump. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/09/02/trump-sends-public-message-to-brit-hume-after-fox-analyst-said-candidates-are-gaining-ground-on-him/

September 3: Trump confuses the Quds Forces in Iran with the Kurds on Hugh Hewitt show, indicating a complete lack of understanding of foreign policy. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/09/03/donald-trump-flunks-foreign-policy-test-says-hell-learn-on-the-job

September 3: A Trump Tower guard hits a protestor in the face, sufficient to make the New York Times political beat. http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/09/03/guard-for-donald-trump-hits-protester/

etc. etc. etc.

and yet...

CNN/ORC Poll: Donald Trump dominates GOP field at 41%
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/26/politics/donald-trump-ted-cruz-polling/index.htmlCruz: Trump 'could be unstoppable' if he wins Iowa
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/25/politics/ted-cruz-donald-trump-iowa/index.html

but...supposedly educated people continue to bury their head in the sand, claiming that Trump isn't really a SERIOUS candidate.

*Facepalm

At least Evo gets it. Whether you support Trump or not, refusing to admit that he is a serious candidate is idiotic.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

This morning NPR's "On Point" had a fantastic program that I think all should listen to in order to gain understanding on the Trump situation

The National Review's Case Against Trump
http://onpoint.wbur.org/2016/01/26/election-2016-donald-trump-national-review

 

[quarknsoul]

Simple. Because he's super rich.

 

[p1l0t]

So how did he do in Iowa?

 

[anorlunda]

This morning NPR's "On Point" had a fantastic program that I think all should listen to in order to gain understanding on the Trump situation

The National Review's Case Against Trump
http://onpoint.wbur.org/2016/01/26/election-2016-donald-trump-national-review

Good program. Several pundits suggest that Trump will destroy the Republican Party, and even that Bill Clinton put Trump up to it as a dirty trick.

Many Democrats are thrilled. But suppose that Republicans did disappear in a puff if smoke. What then? 100 million conservative people could join the Democratic Party as red dogs and try to seize control of the party. It would render elections meaningless, with nomination as the only meaningful event. Does anyone think that would be better?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

But suppose that Republicans did disappear in a puff if smoke. What then? 100 million conservative people could join the Democratic Party as red dogs and try to seize control of the party.

It won't disappear, it will just evolve. The parties are a power system.

 

[p1l0t]

It won't disappear, it will just evolve. The parties are a power system.

I think we need to end "First Past the Post" voting. It would take most of the power out of party. Then we would have to vote for candidates based on actual issues not just identifing ourselves with one party or the other (which is what I believe 95% of Americans do). Giving so-called third parties a fighting chance is the only real chance for real change. Maybe most people don't want real change so they buy right into the age-old fight. But I think if people could vote for what really believe in without fearing "throwing away" their vote to the lesser evil than it would change everything. Good luck getting the two-party regime to change the thing that has kept them in power since the 1800s though!

 

[lisab]

Good program. Several pundits suggest that Trump will destroy the Republican Party, and even that Bill Clinton put Trump up to it as a dirty trick.

Many Democrats are thrilled. But suppose that Republicans did disappear in a puff if smoke. What then? 100 million conservative people could join the Democratic Party as red dogs and try to seize control of the party. It would render elections meaningless, with nomination as the only meaningful event. Does anyone think that would be better?

Even though I lean left, the possibility of the Republican party melting down does not make me happy. The two-party system has plenty of faults, but for it to work well you need two *healthy* parties.

IMO, the Republican party has a nagging illness that hasn't been properly diagnosed yet. It's getting quite sick now. I can't even imagine the consequences if it dies.

 

[russ_watters]

At least Evo gets it. Whether you support Trump or not, refusing to admit that he is a serious candidate is idiotic.

There are two different ways to read/respond to that:
1. Trump isn't a serious person, so it is tough to take anything he does, including a political candidacy, seriously.
2. Because he is not like any candidate that we've ever seen, it is easy to question the accuracy of polling we're seeing. Yes, it may be wishful thinking, and it may be foolish not to consider the possibility that it's smoke and mirrors: his uniqueness can't be denied.

To that end, I find tonight's results promising:
Cruz: 28%
Trump: 24%
Rubio: 23%

Iowa poll released today: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/iowa/release-detail?ReleaseID=2320
Trump: 31%
Cruz: 24%
Rubio: 17%

The results for all three candidates are outside the reported 3.3% error margin. Indeed, only one of more than a dozen different polls listed here had someone other than Trump winning (Iowa State University correctly predicted a Cruz win): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

[edit]
The other theory that we Republican hopefuls have is that while Trump has his percentage that support him, that's it and the rest of the party supports the other candidates -- so when other candidates start to drop out, their votes will go to the other more conventional candidates.

 

[BobG]

Even though I lean left, the possibility of the Republican party melting down does not make me happy. The two-party system has plenty of faults, but for it to work well you need two *healthy* parties.

IMO, the Republican party has a nagging illness that hasn't been properly diagnosed yet. It's getting quite sick now. I can't even imagine the consequences if it dies.

I think there's some truth to this. Is it that Trump is loved by Republicans? Or is it that Republicans hate the Republican Party?

Richard Lugar gets primaried in Indiana because he's a RINO. There was an attempt to primary Lindsey Graham because he's a RINO. There's no fear of criticizing McCain's war hero status because he's a RINO. Bob Dole suggests he might forget to vote if Cruz is nominated because Dole is a RINO. Boehner and Kasich, heroes of the Republican wave in the 90's are despised because they're both RINOs. Nikki Haley takes a slap at Trump because she's a RINO.

Trump is the epitome of "not a Republican" (not a politician of any kind, really).

Parties only stay the same for so long. Every so often, the existing political parties change drastically. In the really old days, one party or the other would just die completely (Whigs, Federalists, for example) and be replaced by a new party. In the 20th and 21st centuries, the name may the stay the same, but the parties may not. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party changed drastically during the depression, with neither bearing much resemblance to their pre-depression make-up. Both parties also changed drastically during the 60's with a complete shake-up in who belonged to each party.

I think we're probably seeing another drastic shake-up. Who knows where the "new" Republican Party settles, but it definitely doesn't look like the Republican Party of even 15 years ago.

And I can imagine the consequences. All the RINOS (which now includes Richard Lugar, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Bob Dole, John Boehner, John Kasich, and Nikki Haley) join the Democratic Party, which means candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Saunders are toast. We'll all vote for Democrats like Ken Salazar and Kathleen Sebelius (which would be good - there's a lot of good Democrats between the Mississippi River and the Sierra Nevadas).

 

[Astronuc]

I heard an analysis this morning that Trump won in areas of the state favorable to Sanders (2016) and Clinton (2008).

Trump is apparently a sore loser.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-why-donald-trump-suffered-180655625.html

Sarah Palin's endorsement didn't help as expected.http://finance.yahoo.com/news/nice-donald-trump-breaks-twitter-162529298.html

 

[russ_watters]

Sarah Palin's endorsement didn't help as expected.

Is that sentence punctuated properly?

 

[StatGuy2000]

I think there's some truth to this. Is it that Trump is loved by Republicans? Or is it that Republicans hate the Republican Party?

Richard Lugar gets primaried in Indiana because he's a RINO. There was an attempt to primary Lindsey Graham because he's a RINO. There's no fear of criticizing McCain's war hero status because he's a RINO. Bob Dole suggests he might forget to vote if Cruz is nominated because Dole is a RINO. Boehner and Kasich, heroes of the Republican wave in the 90's are despised because they're both RINOs. Nikki Haley takes a slap at Trump because she's a RINO.

Trump is the epitome of "not a Republican" (not a politician of any kind, really).

Parties only stay the same for so long. Every so often, the existing political parties change drastically. In the really old days, one party or the other would just die completely (Whigs, Federalists, for example) and be replaced by a new party. In the 20th and 21st centuries, the name may the stay the same, but the parties may not. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party changed drastically during the depression, with neither bearing much resemblance to their pre-depression make-up. Both parties also changed drastically during the 60's with a complete shake-up in who belonged to each party.

I think we're probably seeing another drastic shake-up. Who knows where the "new" Republican Party settles, but it definitely doesn't look like the Republican Party of even 15 years ago.

And I can imagine the consequences. All the RINOS (which now includes Richard Lugar, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Bob Dole, John Boehner, John Kasich, and Nikki Haley) join the Democratic Party, which means candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Saunders are toast. We'll all vote for Democrats like Ken Salazar and Kathleen Sebelius (which would be good - there's a lot of good Democrats between the Mississippi River and the Sierra Nevadas).

Have you considered the possibility that the Republican Party could in fact split into two different parties, rather than the RINOs joining the Democratic Party? As far as I'm aware of, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, John Boehner, and Nikki Haley are solid political conservatives in pretty much every respect, so would be unlikely to join the Democratic Party as it currently exists (John Kasich is currently still in the running for the Republican presidential nomination, although perhaps not for too much longer, so it's unlikely he will ever switch parties or leave the Republican Party).

 

[anorlunda]

solid political conservatives in pretty much every respect, so would be unlikely to join the Democratic Party as it currently exists

As it currently exists is the point. The goal of those joining would be to turn the party red, or at least less blue. In other words, a heist.

 

[StatGuy2000]

As it currently exists is the point. The goal of those joining would be to turn the party red, or at least less blue. In other words, a heist.

Perhaps, but in the case of the politicians mentioned earlier (Graham, McCain, Boehner, Haley), highly unlikely. A more likely outcome are for these mainstream conservative Republicans (in contrast to the Tea Party extremists who both Cruz and Trump are courting) to stay in the Republican and engage in a power struggle to determine the direction of where the party is to be headed.

Most of the true liberal Republicans of the past (e.g. former Rhode Island Senator and Governor Lincoln Chafee, former Maine Senator and Secretary of Defense William Cohen) have already left the Republican Party to either become Democrats or independents, as have many of the moderates. Which is really unfortunate, because I personally have no problem voting for liberal or moderate (i.e. sensible) Republicans like Cohen or Jon Huntsman for public office.

As far as the current crop of Republican presidential nominees, the most palatable of these would be Marco Rubbio and John Kasich.

 

[Astronuc]

Trump campaign shows a different side after Iowa loss
http://news.yahoo.com/trump-campaign-shows-different-side-iowa-loss-233945537--election.html

I guess Trump doesn't get the "Mr Congeniality" award.

 

[BobG]

An interesting article on why Trump is so popular and what it means for the Republican Party.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/01/the-great-republican-revolt/419118/

While I mentioned the possibility of moderates leaving the party, I think option 4 (change the rules) is actually the most likely result. Expect to see the Republican Party have lots more super delegates come time for the 2020 nomination. It seems to be working for the Democrats. Clinton has a win in Iowa and a tie in New Hampshire so far, all thanks to super delegates.

 

[Astronuc]

On the other hand - The rise of Donald Trump is a terrifying moment in American politics
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/10/10956978/donald-trump-terrifying

Stephen Colbert hosted a Trump vs. Trump debate
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/29/10868392/stephen-colbert-debate-donald-trump