Do You Know Why Trump is Popular?

[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?

 

[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.