News Do You Know Why Trump is Popular?

[russ_watters]

When it becomes a purely ostentatious display to make a country that we have racial tensions with mad rather than a practical solution.

And how do you determine that? I really want to know because I may need to alter my position to ensure that I'm not a racist.

[And I guess I'm setting aside reconciling it with both your and the Pope's language that were clearly referring to *any* wall...]

 

[DavidSnider]

And how do you determine that? I really want to know because I need to alter my position to ensure that I'm not a racist.

[And I guess I'm setting aside reconciling it with both your and the Pope's language that were clearly referring to *any* wall...]

At what temperature is water "hot"?

 

[russ_watters]

At what temperature is water "hot"?

Exactly. You are not following a defined criteria. And yet you said "...any..." (all).

Look, David - and MeBigGuy - I think by the way you are dodging/goalpost shifting/selectively ignoring parts of this that I'm getting through to you at least a little bit. My point here (as also pointed out by others) is that you guys are being overly judgemental in judging people's beliefs based on their support of a not inherently belief-based issue (as you said, it's just a wall!). I submit that you shouldn't be doing that. You should judge ideas at face value wherever possible and not assume ulterior/nefarious motives behind them when you have no direct evidence of those beliefs.

And in particular, when you find that your perceptions are way, way off from a reality, it should prompt you to re-evaluate how you arrived at that perception.

 

[russ_watters]

This kind of comment, assuming to know the minds of others, is almost the entirely the reason a showman like Trump is leading in the GOP.

...I really do believe that nonsense like this is what is fueling his popularity.

Yes, and based on the current discussion, I'd almost be willing to vote for him just to prove the point!

 

[DavidSnider]

Yes, and based on the current discussion, I'd almost be willing to vote for him just to prove the point!

Admitting that your party votes for people purely out of spite for the opposition is not doing them any favors.

 

[russ_watters]

Admitting that your party votes for people purely out of spite for the opposition is not doing them any favors.

I disagree.

And to add to my previous post, I also suggest that you not use overly broad language when you don't actually mean it.

 

[meBigGuy]

I'm not waffling in any way. Just read what I said. All your hocus-pocus rationalization stuff is off the mark. For the most part Trump's support is clear and simple.
We will just have to disagree on how racist this country really is and how narrow minded Trump supporters are. Do you think they are the "salt of the earth"? They are just all sad disillusioned idealists lashing out in the only way they can? BAH!

You can latch on one narrow interpretation and demand "direct evidence", but that misses the whole point.

 

[TurtleMeister]

Better get this in before the thread gets locked. :)

The idea that better control on our southern border, or "the wall", is a racist issue is insane. Let's suppose that everyone south of that border is white. Everything else being equal, would that then make it a non-issue? Do you think that we would all just say "oh well, they're all white so everything is cool"? I'm sure that there are some racists in Trump supporters. But this is not a race issue.

The best answer to this thread has already been posted. But I'm sure that many of you just turned a blind eye to it. I will post the link again in case you missed it: Trump's America. If nothing else, just read the first sentence. Hopefully that will be enough to make you want to read more. If you are under 50 years old then I can understand how you may not relate to it. But I can tell you that it contains a lot of truths. I know it because I've lived it.

 

[Confusing Happiness]

Trump, Steve Jobs, the Clintons, Cosby, Hitler, Oprah, and Kim Jong Un and many others share something in common - they have a high theory of mind, develop & sell their personality brand, and know how to wield rhetoric like a tool or weapon. Trump's lifestyle is very liberal, but suddenly he's the South's favorite guy. He's pretending to be religious, claims he's a gentleman towards women, and acts nicer towards the Pope. There are psychological classifications for people like this - he's all of them.

 

[russ_watters]

We will just have to disagree on how racist this country really is and how narrow minded Trump supporters are.

You are allowed to believe what you want, but when you say things here that are claims of fact, they have to be substantiated with facts.

 

[Bystander]

Donald Trump? Bull in a China shop --- full of what? I'm beginning to think the inventory's not all that valuable --- leastwise the breakable stuff.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

You are again focusing on Trump rather than his supporters.

Donald Trump is a great guy, we've been friends for a long time, I love him, great guy, huuuuge potential, still... You are definitely right — this is not about good ol' Donald per se. Afaik, in current political climate, one could teach a monkey waving his arms while screaming a few insulting/naughty words, and the political success would be equal — if not even greater.

I found a link to Murray's essay that is not behind a pay wall.

http://www.aei.org/publication/trum...content=AEITHISWEEK&utm_campaign=Weekly021216

Interesting reading, especially since Charles Murray resonate in the right political spectrum (libertarian). Though one passage is a little bit wacky, where Murray partly blame civil rights and feminist movements for breaking up the "American creed", which then alienated the archetypal "Reagan Democrats" of the 1980s white working-class males, whom now are described as the core of support for Mr. Trump.

Hum... this part of the thesis might be problematic in the light of Charles Murray's own infamous Trump(chauvin)ism, with papers titled "Where Are the Female Einsteins?" and books like The Bell Curve, about race and intelligence... (which was repudiated in NYT as "a scabrous piece of racial pornography masquerading as serious scholarship").

Fortunately, a few paragraphs later, Murray get his act together when it comes to the heart of the matter:

[my emphasis]

But the central truth of Trumpism as a phenomenon is that the entire American working class has legitimate reasons to be angry at the ruling class. During the past half-century of economic growth, virtually none of the rewards have gone to the working class. The economists can supply caveats and refinements to that statement, but the bottom line is stark: The real family income of people in the bottom half of the income distribution hasn’t increased since the late 1960s.
[...]
To top it off, the party they have voted for in recent decades, the Republicans, hasn’t done a damn thing to help them. Who wouldn’t be angry?

— This is a quite powerful revelation, coming from the right —So, what do the lefties have to say about the matter? Well...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109
(Disclaimer: If you're a hardcore Republican, easily hurt, thinking Murray was harsh — don't follow the link. Read the following quotes from high-ranking Republicans instead.)

[my emphasis]

"The Republican Party has totally abdicated its job in our democracy, which is to act as the guardian of fiscal discipline and responsibility," says David Stockman, who served as budget director under Reagan. "They're on an anti-tax jihad – one that benefits the prosperous classes."
[...]
Tax receipts as a percent of the total economy have fallen to levels not seen since before the Korean War – nearly 20 percent below the historical average. "Taxes are ridiculously low!" says Bruce Bartlett, an architect of Reagan's 1981 tax cut. "And yet the mantra of the Republican Party is 'Tax cuts raise growth.' So – where's the fu**ing growth?"

Republicans talk about job creation, about preserving family farms and defending small businesses, and reforming Medicare and Social Security. But almost without exception, every proposal put forth by GOP lawmakers and presidential candidates is intended to preserve or expand tax privileges for the wealthiest Americans. And most of their plans, which are presented as common-sense measures that will aid all Americans, would actually result in higher taxes for middle-class taxpayers and the poor.

(Oops, if Tim Dickinson is correct, the [new] GOP abbreviation might stand for Grand One Percent... ;)

Seems like these gentlemen fairly agree on what's the problem with today's Republican Party. Charles Murray believe GOP has left 50% of the population behind, while Tim Dickinson think it is as much as 99%, and everything that GOP does nowadays is destined for the 1% wealthiest Americans.

This thread is probably not the right place to discuss the correct number, and it really doesn't matter — 50% is enough for any rambling monkey to win the GOP primaries.

(According to pivit.io Trump right now has a 50% chance to become the 2016 Republican Nominee, which is spot on...)

Finally, a picture that says a lot:

Federal debt held by the public as a percentage of GDP, from 1790 to 2013, projected to 2038

The outcome of the primaries will depend of whether the Republican establishment can convince angry voters that the scary bulge to the right is solely due to Obamacare etc, or if Mr. Trump can convince them that in current legislation there is no jurisdictional difference between donations, funding and bribes, which result in a corrupt system/rigged economy.

And just as Murray's essay started; don’t kid yourself that Trumpism will fade away if Trump fails to win the Republican nomination. There will always be a new barking "Donald Thwomp", lurking around the corner, and next time this creature might possesses the right psychopath/demagogue skills to make it all the way.

This got to be solved the civilized way — there is no choice.

 

[mheslep]

Charles Murray believe GOP has left 50% of the population behind

Murray doesn't lay blame on just the GOP.

By the beginning of the 1980s, Democratic elites overwhelmingly subscribed to an ideology in open conflict with liberty and individualism as traditionally understood. This consolidated the Democratic Party’s longtime popularity with ethnic minorities, single women and low-income women, but it alienated another key Democratic constituency: the white working class.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Murray doesn't lay blame on just the GOP.

True, the world isn't black & white, and I think this isn't a "blame game". However, note that Murray state "the central truth of Trumpism as a phenomenon"...

To back it up somewhat (though not legitimate science), last night in S.C. CNN exit polls asked:

- Do you feel betrayed by the Republican Party?​

53% answered: Yes

(and my guess is this has very little to do with the civil rights movement or women's lib... but of course I could be wrong...)

Last night the Bush clan left the political stage, the last direct link to Ronald Reagan and "trickle-down economics". The same night 53% of the Republican voters said they felt betrayed by the party.

Coincidence?

 

[mheslep]

Last night the Bush clan left the political stage, the last direct link to Ronald Reagan and "trickle-down economics". The same night 53% of the Republican voters said they felt betrayed by the party.

Coincidence?

Bush? Trickle down economics? The year is 2016.

The betrayal answer, among Republican voters, comes overwhelmingly from the perceived opinion, fair or not, that after the voters installed an overwhelming Congressional majority, they were unable to stop Obamacare and did not significantly stop illegal immigration. Also throw in a lousy real unemployment rate for a half dozen years and continuing enormous deficit.

 

[p1l0t]

Bush? Trickle down economics? The year is 2016.

The betrayal answer, among Republican voters, comes overwhelmingly from the perceived opinion, fair or not, that after the voters installed an overwhelming Congressional majority, they were unable to stop Obamacare and did not significantly stop illegal immigration. Also throw in a lousy real unemployment rate for a half dozen years and continuing enormous deficit.

HA http://usdebtclock.org it's fine it's the government it runs on magic it doesn't have to ever cut spending that would hurt the economy. It won't be inefficient and prolong the recession...

 

[jw6661]

Trump is popular because of the media:



watch it and weep it ^_^

 

[jw6661]

Newt Gingrich to Fox News: You ‘Invented’ Donald Trump

 

[mheslep]

I think there's some truth to the notion that the mass media invented Trump. Supposedly he gets something like 3/4 of the free media time among all the candidates. Several of the networks allow Trump to regularly conduct phone interviews. They've not done that with any other candidate in the past.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Bush?

Yes the Bush family, where members of the family has been in the White House in 20 of the last 35 years. I'm sure you recognise one or two:

Trickle down economics? The year is 2016.

If Martin Luther King, Jane Fonda and Reagan Democrats is referred to as a plausible explanation for the 2016 Trump success, I really don't see a problem to account for a (global) paradigm shift like Trickle-down/Reaganomics, that affects billions of people to this day (ask the Greeks).

Short recap:

After WWII, between 1945-1970, the Bretton Woods monetary system (aka Keynesianism) established the rules for financial relations among the U.S., Canada, Western Europe, Australia and Japan, which included fixed exchange rates and the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency. Bretton Woods resulted in high growth, low unemployment, price stability and levelled income inequality — and is known as the Golden Age of Capitalism.

On 15 August 1971 — without consulting IMF or his own State Department — Nixon presented what was soon dubbed the Nixon Shock:



Of course, this 'temporarily' suspension of the convertibility of the US$ to gold was soon permanent (as a direct result of the costly Vietnam War), which led to the collapse of the Bretton Woods monetary system, and then the 1973 oil crisis, and the 1973–1974 stock market crash, led to the full-blown 1970s recession.

In the 1970s recession there was low growth, high unemployment + high inflation, which according to the experts was an 'impossible' combination, and some claimed there was something fundamentally wrong in Keynesian theory.

Now in the early 1980s, this troika entered the political/economical stage:

Milton Friedman, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan ordered the resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism (as a remedy to to the 'faulty' Keynesianism), which became know as Neoliberalism aka Thatcherism aka Reaganomics aka Trickle-down economics. However different names, the fundamental pillars where all the same: Extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, reductions in government spending in order to enhance the private sector in the economy — with the promise that it would benefit all.

And the result after 35 years is this:

Source: When a Rising Tide Sinks Most Boats - Trends in US Income Inequality (Levy Economics Institute)

I.e. Charles Murray's central truth of Trumpism refined...If you still think that Trickle-down/Reaganomics is obsolete today, pleas read this 2015 IMF paper:

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42986.0

We find that increasing the income share of the poor and the middle class actually increases growth while a rising income share of the top 20 percent results in lower growth—that is, when the rich get richer, benefits do not trickle down.

Or, listen to Marco Rubio on the South Carolina Primary Results:

Ronald Reagan! [Yeaaaaaaah-clap-clap-clap] Ronald Reagan made us believe that it was Morning in America again, and it was. [Yeaah] Well, now the children of the Reagan Revolution are ready assume the mantel of leadership! [Yeaaaaaaah-clap-clap-clap] Now, those of us who grow up when it was Morning in America, and Ronald Reagan was in the White House, are ready to do for our* generation... for ah.. are ready to do for the next generation, what Ronald Reagan did for ours! [Woooooo-Yeaaaaaaah-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap]

*Interesting Freudian slip :)

(Looks like Rubio is going to take Reaganomics 2.0 into the 21st century... poor kid, roaring Thwomp will crush him before he ever gets the chance...)

Trickle-down has failed, and at least in the UK young conservatives has the decency to admit there's a problem:

Trickle-down economics is dead, let’s build prosperity from the middle-out instead | Conservative Home

This is the only way to save the Republican Party — fluff smoke screens like civil rights etc, will only boost Trumpism and other roaring creatures.

 

[jw6661]

Is it me, or does matt damon and rubio talk and look alike. I think Matt damon runs in 2024.

 

[mheslep]

Yes the Bush family, where members of the family has been in the White House in 20 of the last 35 years ...

Three terms ending 26 and 8 years ago. So much for old history irrelevant to this thread. I could also post photos of, say, the Roosevelt clan that held the Presidency for five terms and few more photos of Keynes, but that would also waste everyone's time and perhaps have readers curious about why I'm derailing a PF thread on Trump popularity with my obsession with the irrelevant past.

Barack Obama is and has been the President of the US for nearly two terms, and for a time during his first term he enjoyed a Democratic majority in the House and a super majority in the Senate. The economic and foreign policy of the US is now most properly called Obamanomics and the Obama Doctrine. Many of these policies and his devisive tone boiled over the Republican pot and led to large Republican majorities in Congress. The "betrayal" cited frequently by some Trump leaning Republican voters is, as I said, and what 30s on google will show, frustration with the Congress's failure to check Obama policies. Examples here.
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/12/top-10-gop-betrayals-in-2015
http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/706463

 

[Astronuc]

Al Sharpton: Trump is the white Don King
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/sharpton-trump-is-the-white-don-king-219601

“The best way I can describe Donald Trump to friends is to say if Don King had been born white he’d be Donald Trump,” says Sharpton with a broadening smile. “Both of them are great self-promoters and great at just continuing to talk even if you’re not talking back at ’em.”

 

[DevilsAvocado]

The economic and foreign policy of the US is now most properly called Obamanomics and the Obama Doctrine.

*cough* 'Obamanomics' is the new paradigm shift? Like Keynesianism -> Neoliberalism -> Obamanomics?

I didn't know that, so I had to check Financial Times, but sadly there is no exact definition of this new paradigm shift:

Obamanomics is a neologism which seeks to define the economic philosophy of the Obama administration. The portmanteau has obvious historical references to "Reaganomics", which is commonly used to define the policies of President Reagan in the 1980s.

Less obvious, however, is agreement on what Obamanomics actually means. To conservatives, the term is used negatively to describe an increasing role for the state. Democrats, meanwhile, cite health care reform and cap-and-trade as positive examples of Obamanomics.

The reason why the term is difficult to define is because the Obama administration was thrust headfirst into the financial crisis and recession. Emergency measures are being confused with a new economic philosophy.

So, I checked empirical data for a clue:

Bretton Woods and downhill Reaganomics is clearly visible, but where is ground breaking Obamanomics? Is it that tiny mound in 2012/2013? Where Obama raised the two top tax rates from 35% to 39.6% and from 33% to 36%?

Maybe Obamanomics focus on corporate tax to get the "trickle-up" effect?

With all due respect — I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and it doesn't make sense that Republican voters turn their backs on the Republican establishment because of "all the bad things" Obama does in "his devisive tone".

Charles Murray's central truth of Trumpism still holds.

 

[russ_watters]

Poorly titled and not very informative first graph aside, I think "Obamanomics" is more about spending than taxes. "Tax and spend" was pretty much abandoned after Dukakis was open about it and lost to Reagan. After that, the Democrats realized that taxes (except on the nebulous "rich") are unpopular, so it basically turned to "spend and spend".

 

[DiracPool]

The problem now after the Nevada win is that the pool of Trump competitors is down to practically nothing. So he may get the nomination simply through attrition. That's pretty scary and sad. All we have left is Kasich, Cruz, and Rubio. I'd probably vote Kasich first, Rubio second, and I wouldn't show up for the polls for Cruz. I kind of like Rubio, but he does seem to be something of an automaton; his deliveries seem scripted and passionless, like a Stepford wife. Cruz is a joke, IMO. Kasich is probably the only competitor left to face Trump.

Trump is wholly unqualified to be president, again, in my opinion. Trump is a symbol of American capitalism, a winner take all, zero-sum game mentality. International politics is a different game. I feel much more comfortable with a candidate that has been brought up in the political system and that has experience in governmental politics, not exclusively business politics, as cheesy as it may seem. I don't want an arrogant bully in the whitehouse.

 

[p1l0t]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

 

[jim hardy]

Trump is a symbol of American capitalism, a winner take all, zero-sum game mentality. International politics is a different game. I feel much more comfortable with a candidate that has been brought up in the political system and that has experience in governmental politics, not exclusively business politics, as cheesy as it may seem. I don't want an arrogant bully in the whitehouse.

Eric Hoffer observed

The monstrous evils of the twentieth century have shown us that the greediest money grubbers are gentle doves compared with money-hating wolves like Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler, who in less than three decades killed or maimed nearly a hundred million men, women, and children and brought untold suffering to a large portion of mankind.

In Our Time (1976), "Money," p. 37

Spare me the reformers who want to redesign society. I want a practical man of action who gets things done.

All the President is, is a glorified public relations man who spends his time flattering, kissing and kicking people to get them to do what they are supposed to do anyway.

Harry S Truman, Letter to his sister, Nov. 14, 1947

 

[Evo]

Spare me the reformers who want to redesign society. I want a practical man of action who gets things done.

Does this mean you are for Trump?

 

[p1l0t]

Looks like it's Trump vs Clinton.. MAYBE Sanders but even that's looking like a long shot.