Donald Trump Running for President

[Borg]

What makes you think he is being honest? Remember, he's a salesman.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/21/politics/donald-trump-lindsey-graham-cell-phone/index.html

In my mind his campaign is designed to troll us. Do whatever, say whatever that will get you in the news.

Graham seems to be taking it well.

 

[WWGD]

The statistics headlined in post # 155 seem far off the topic of "TRUMP".

But it should be noted that with roughly 54 million Spanish US population {US Census, 2013] and about 122M total population in Mexico, {also 2013, World Bank} seems we have been rather 'open' admitting Spanish.

So I do think Trump can make a case for controlling our southern border.

There are many people of Mexican descent that were not "admitted", they lived in the states that belonged to Mexico before these were taken over . And there is no post #155. If you are referring to my post #115, I am addressing points made by you in #114, which, by the way, you did not reference.
And 54 million is not the number "admitted", it includes many descendants over many generations.

And we have "admitted" millions of Germans, English, Irish, Italians, etc. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762137.html , so what is your point? Should we be less open admitting Germans, English, Italians, etc. too?

 

[WWGD]

Graham seems to be taking it well.

He's been doing it for a while : , see 0:18- 0:21. for a video
of him in his earlier days.

 

[Finny]

so what is your point? Should we be less open admitting Germans, English, Italians, etc. too?

Good idea if they are the type Trump described discussing entering our southern border:
"... they're sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists...[from my post # 114]

Perhaps even worse, certainly no better, unsupervised underage children are being sent from Central American maybe south American countries:
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/arti...bestia-route-dangers-and-government-responses [Don't know what if anything has been done since mid 2014.]

My point was nobody should be claiming Trump is biased against Mexicans, nor Spanish in general, nor anybody else. We have lots of many nationalities here. But WE get to pick who is granted citizenship, via congressional legislation, not foreign governments nor immigrants themselves nor an executive branch circumventing the law.

I never said we should be more...nor less... open in admitting citizens of any country. All I have said is that Trump seems to want to control our border. I like that.

What's going on now reminds me of the Mariel boat lift when a number of the Cuban government released thousands from jails and mental health facilities. Maybe it's even worse now: the 'undocumented immigrant' who recently killed Kate Steinle in California had a known record including 30 alias over 25 years and five prior deportations. And we let him out of jail!

edit:

And there is no post #155.

typo...should have been 115.]
Yes that should have been post #115 .

 

[WWGD]

Trump has provided no data AFAIK, to support his claim about Mexicans. And one murder, however despicable, is statistically insignificant. Show me 200-300 and convince me that the murder rate among illegals is higher than that of the rest of the population and then I will start paying attention. Believe it or not, many illegals pay taxes (incl. sales taxes), even social security ones which they will never get back. And they rent apartments , shop in supermarkets, etc. It is difficult to decide if _ as a whole_ they are bad for the country. Convince me they are, since you are claiming so. I have seen mixed data/studies on this.

 

[jim hardy]

Mariel boat lift when a number of the Cuban government released thousands from jails and mental health facilities.

i lived south of Miami then. That is exactly what Castro did.
People who went down there to retrieve family were told "You'll take these people with you, too."
I have two freinds who took their boats down there, both said they brought back known criminals in addition to their family members. Local authorities in Key West were overwhelmed.
Home invasions around Miami skyrocketed within weeks.
Didn't help Carter's popularity in S Florida a bit.

So it CAN happen.

 

[WWGD]

i lived south of Miami then. That is exactly what Castro did.
People who went down there to retrieve family were told "You'll take these people with you, too."
I have two freinds who took their boats down there, both said they brought back known criminals in addition to their family members. Local authorities in Key West were overwhelmed.
Home invasions around Miami skyrocketed within weeks.
Didn't help Carter's popularity in S Florida a bit.

So it CAN happen.

But Trump's , and I believe Finny's claim is that this is what _has_ happened with the wave of Mexicans and illegal ( overall?) immigration. And I think this needs support.

 

[jim hardy]

But Trump's , and I believe Finny's claim is that this is what _has_ happened with the wave of Mexicans and illegal ( overall?) immigration. And I think this needs support.

The truth must be somewhere in between how Alex Jones and Thom Hartmann spin it for their audiences.

I no longer live near a border so can't offer firsthand observation.

 

[WWGD]

The truth must be somewhere in between how Alex Jones and Thom Hartmann spin it for their audiences.

I no longer live near a border so can't offer firsthand observation.

But given the nature of the accusation, I believe Trump has the burden of proof in making a statement of this sort, and I have not seen any actual serious evidence presented by him. It is a serious issue to accuse a whole group of people of being rapists and drug dealers. But once one (Trump) decides to make such accusation,he should be able to support it. But he hasn't yet.

 

[StevieTNZ]

I found this image I came across this morning rather amusing -- https://www.facebook.com/TheShadeRo...828.1462426734001720/1745908752320182/?type=1

 

[Evo]

I found this image I came across this morning rather amusing -- https://www.facebook.com/TheShadeRo...828.1462426734001720/1745908752320182/?type=1

I *love* that!

 

[WWGD]

I found this image I came across this morning rather amusing -- https://www.facebook.com/TheShadeRo...828.1462426734001720/1745908752320182/?type=1

Good, but it's a little corny.

 

[jim hardy]

But given the nature of the accusation, I believe Trump has the burden of proof in making a statement of this sort, and I have not seen any actual serious evidence presented by him. It is a serious issue to accuse a whole group of people of being rapists and drug dealers. But once one (Trump) decides to make such accusation,he should be able to support it. But he hasn't yet.

I haven't watched closely. Both extremes are pumping out the propaganda as usual.

In our present "news" environment one can cherry pick any headline he wants.
The name of the game is to persuade not to elucidate

his supporters put out stuff like this to convince us he's a beacon of sensibility

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/1...led-illegals-one-year-one-state-10th-largest/

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/12/man-who-entered-us-illegally-arrested-in-michigan-on-kidnapping-sexual-assault/?intcmp=latestnews

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/20/killed-in-her-sleep-illegal-immigrants-suspected-in-mass-grandma-death-faced/?intcmp=latestnews

and his detractors tell us he's just a raving hatemongering nutjob

myself I've got kinda immune to it all.

You are i think correct - Trump hasn't backed his claims, or if he did present statistics i wasn't paying attention and missed it.

And i don't offer the above as support just examples of the propaganda blob . Once one starts reading headlines with an eye to their intended effect he becomes circumspect .

I remember Walter Cronkite in the 70's as a paragon of integrity. I used to trust the evening news. I wonder if i'd see things the same now that I've aged forty years. What's changed - me or the world ?

 

[Finny]

Trump has provided no data AFAIK, to support his claim about Mexicans. And one murder, however despicable, is statistically insignificant. Show me 200-300 and convince me that the murder rate among illegals is higher than that of the rest of the population and then I will start paying attention.

I believe Finny's claim is that this is what _has_ happened with the wave of Mexicans and illegal ( overall?) immigration.

Both are misrepresentations of what has been stated. If you read both Trump's quote I posted [via CNN] and my own posts, you will realize that is not what is being said. I can't respond to strawmen accusations, especially ones which don't represent what I have stated. Trump said he wants to keep out criminals, drug dealers, and rapists; I said letting all those scoundrels in reminds me of the Mariel Boat Lift. The consequences unfettered borders are too obvious to discuss.

Besides, Trump has flip flopped as much as Hillary. Well, maybe, not quite that much! Anyway, some have accused Trump of being a secret representative of internationalists masquerading as a fiscal conservative. I sure don't know. He is also reported to have contributed a lot more money to democrats than republicans, Hardly an endearment. No surprise since he does a lot of business in NYC.

We'll have to see how well Trump plays out. Christie,too, sounded great then got elected in NJ and pooped out. Meantime I get to LOL at Trumps retorts to the perpetually aggrieved media busybodies.

 

[Finny]

Associated with Trump's possible Republican candidacy is of course the stodgy GOP big government elites. The party big wigs.

Here is what I thought an interesting critique of the proposed proposed debate limits to the top ten poll candidates. I'm not sure who set the rules, but never underestimate the ability of the GOP to shoot it's own candidate in the foot.

Of course with what, 16 candidates, who wants to watch so many all talking at once? In MMA, for example,the contestants listen to the referee; Political debate moderators get no such respect.

1. Every single GOP candidate who doesn't qualify to stand on the debate stage is within 2 percentage points of the last candidate to make the cut. Yet we are excluding these candidates via 1,000-sample surveys with a 3.5 percent margin of error at the 95 percent confidence level?

2. Seriously, the GOP has found a way to exclude the sitting, re-elected governor of Ohio, the sitting, re-elected governor of Louisiana, and the most serious female candidate for president the GOP has yet had (a former CEO who is smarter and tougher than most of the GOP guys running), from debates? Our adversaries would have to work hard to do us this much damage.

3. GOP contributors invest a lot of money to get candidates on television. Let me say that again: We actually pay real dollars to get them exposure on television. This year, when we have a great field of serious candidates, we have chosen to give them less free exposure? We are not exactly qualifying for MENSA with this one.

4. It is just plain wrong for the Washington elite and the news media to tell voters, at the outset of a campaign, which candidates they will fall in love in with and which they won't. That's a job for voters themselves.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/criticism-of-gop-debate-scheme-intensifies/article/2568895

With Trump likely to be sounding off, I might even listen to this.

 

[WWGD]

Both are misrepresentations of what has been stated. If you read both Trump's quote I posted [via CNN] and my own posts, you will realize that is not what is being said. I can't respond to strawmen accusations, especially ones which don't represent what I have stated. Trump said he wants to keep out criminals, drug dealers, and rapists; I said letting all those scoundrels in reminds me of the Mariel Boat Lift. The consequences unfettered borders are too obvious to discuss.
.

I was referring to Trump's claim about Mexicans. You pointed out a murder by an illegal alien, apparently (to my understanding) to bolster your case against immigration; if that was not your point, that is what I understood it to be. And I stated " I believe" in my second paragraph. So please don't accuse me of using straw men arguments just because I may not understand the points you are making. And there _is_ a case for more open borders: many Mexicans look for work seasonally, and return to Mexico when their work is done. This is possible when the borders are open, at least to some extent.
And I at least I addressed your points, you never showed the courtesy of addressing the points I made. You may want to address my claim that net immigration from Mexico is negative before continuing your rants against open borders -- a non-issue when net migration is negative.

 

[chingel]

I don't understand why Americans don't secure their border. It should be made such that known criminals don't get in the country as often as they want to (for example 5 times with the last killer).

When you don't let criminals in, the reputation of the immigrants becomes better, because there is less crime committed. This results in less friction in the society, less discrimination (good immigrants get viewed negatively because of the bad ones). Also, there are plenty of people who won't cross borders illegally, because they have ethical standards and don't want to break the law. If a significant proportion of immigrants are illegals, certain kinds of people are over-represented.

If you would secure the border, not let in criminals, but let in the same number of people legally as currently come illegally, you would have the same amount of workers for the economy, you would give Mexicans a fairer chance (by giving a chance to those who won't do illegal stuff and by not filing up the immigration tolerance of the American people with illegals), the image and reputation of immigrants would improve and everybody would be better off.

Also you would give a chance to the rest of the world. Why is it that Mexicans can come illegally as much as they want to instead of good people from around the world (including Mexico), who want to come legally?

 

[WWGD]

I don't understand why Americans don't secure their border. It should be made such that known criminals don't get in the country as often as they want to (for example 5 times with the last killer).

When you don't let criminals in, the reputation of the immigrants becomes better, because there is less crime committed. This results in less friction in the society, less discrimination (good immigrants get viewed negatively because of the bad ones). Also, there are plenty of people who won't cross borders illegally, because they have ethical standards and don't want to break the law. If a significant proportion of immigrants are illegals, certain kinds of people are over-represented.

If you would secure the border, not let in criminals, but let in the same number of people legally as currently come illegally, you would have the same amount of workers for the economy, you would give Mexicans a fairer chance (by giving a chance to those who won't do illegal stuff and by not filing up the immigration tolerance of the American people with illegals), the image and reputation of immigrants would improve and everybody would be better off.

Also you would give a chance to the rest of the world. Why is it that Mexicans can come illegally as much as they want to instead of good people from around the world (including Mexico), who want to come legally?

1) No actual evidence has been presented to the fact that a large percentage of those coming in are criminal.

2) The net migration of Mexicans is negative. Assuming there is a large percentage of criminals among them, the negative migration means that the net inflow of criminals is also negative.

3) Both countries benefit from open borders: workers come for seasonal work and then go back home when seasonal work is over. Harder to do with tight border controls.

4) Poor Mexicans from remote towns do not have access to lawyers, or, if they do, rarely have the money to pay for them, in order to go through the official "ethical " channels. Following the law makes you law-abiding, not (necessarily) ethical.

 

[Finny]

You pointed out a murder by an illegal alien, apparently (to my understanding) to bolster your case against immigration;

No. Never posted that. I posted, if you read what I wrote, as an example why convicted criminals, drug dealers and rapists should be excluded. Open borders enable criminals to leave their home country and start their mischief anew. In fact it encourages them to do so.

"negative migration" is irrelevant to the point Trump is making. If good hard working, tax paying people leave and a smaller number of criminals continue to enter our country, that can't be good. Well it's good for Mexico, maybe.

No actual evidence has been presented to the fact that a large percentage of those coming in are criminal.

Why should we admit even a 'small percentage' of convicted drug dealers, cartel members, gang members, rapists, criminals? I advocate we exclude all such ne'er-do-wells.

 

[chingel]

Isn't the point of the border not to let any criminals in, even if most of the people are not criminals? Like at the airport, most people won't bring bombs on board, but the point is not to let any bombs on board at all, even if it would happen rarely.

Surely it would be better not to let criminals cross borders as they wish? Surely you would agree to a system that would let the same number of good people through, but would stop the criminals?

You say the net flux is negative. But why should new criminals be let in? It would be even better to keep all criminals out. You don't have to stop Mexican citizens from going back to Mexico. You just check that the new people who come aren't criminals and you let more people in around the world, not just Mexico. That sounds reasonable to me. Letting in new criminals because criminals are also leaving doesn't make sense.

To the point that it is easier for them if they can come and go as they wish, rules and regulations are for a reason. If you are running a business and have workers and you haven't registered anywhere, there is no control over whether you pay taxes, how you conduct your business, do you follow laws and standards etc. Laws have to be applied fairly, I am sure local workers and businesses would also want all sorts of regulations not to apply to them. You can make temporary and seasonal working visas easier to get, to lessen regulations to the level that you think is acceptable. Didn't know you needed a lawyer to work in the USA, if that's true then I agree the regulations are too much.

 

[WWGD]

No. Never posted that. I posted, if you read what I wrote, as an example why convicted criminals, drug dealers and rapists should be excluded. Open borders enable criminals to leave their home country and start their mischief anew. In fact it encourages them to do so.

"negative migration" is irrelevant to the point Trump is making. If good hard working, tax paying people leave and a smaller number of criminals continue to enter our country, that can't be good. Well it's good for Mexico, maybe.
Why should we admit even a 'small percentage' of convicted drug dealers, cartel members, gang members, rapists, criminals? I advocate we exclude all such ne'er-do-wells.

But there is _no evidence whatsoever_ that criminals , rapists , etc. are coming in in any significant amount. Of course, no one wants them, but no system can filter them all out. It is the price you pay for letting _any_ group in; no system is perfect at filtering undesirables. And, again, both sides benefit from the back-and-forth flow.

 

[WWGD]

Isn't the point of the border not to let any criminals in, even if most of the people are not criminals? Like at the airport, most people won't bring bombs on board, but the point is not to let any bombs on board at all, even if it would happen rarely.

Surely it would be better not to let criminals cross borders as they wish? Surely you would agree to a system that would let the same number of good people through, but would stop the criminals?

You say the net flux is negative. But why should new criminals be let in? It would be even better to keep all criminals out. You don't have to stop Mexican citizens from going back to Mexico. You just check that the new people who come aren't criminals and you let more people in around the world, not just Mexico. That sounds reasonable to me. Letting in new criminals because criminals are also leaving doesn't make sense.

To the point that it is easier for them if they can come and go as they wish, rules and regulations are for a reason. If you are running a business and have workers and you haven't registered anywhere, there is no control over whether you pay taxes, how you conduct your business, do you follow laws and standards etc. Laws have to be applied fairly, I am sure local workers and businesses would also want all sorts of regulations not to apply to them. You can make temporary and seasonal working visas easier to get, to lessen regulations to the level that you think is acceptable. Didn't know you needed a lawyer to work in the USA, if that's true then I agree the regulations are too much.

My point is that the next flux is negative, more criminals are leaving than entering. There is really no way of preventing (supposed) criminals ( the still _alleged_ criminals Trump mentioned) from coming in, even with border controls. You _cannot_ in the real world keep all criminals out. And not all regulations have a good reason for being; effective regulation is more of an art than a science.

Still, before going on with this discussion, we should establish the accuracy of Trump's claims.
If there is no wave of rapists, criminals and drug dealers coming in, the whole discussion is pointless: you _cannot_ , with _any_ system , prevent all criminals from coming in. If there are relatively few
coming in, this is the best you can do, since you cannot prevent all criminals from coming in, no matter what you do.

 

[chingel]

I understand that more criminals might be leaving, you don't have to stop them from leaving. I am suggesting not letting new criminals in, which surely nobody wants.

Also I don't think the question is whether the Mexican illegal's crime rate is higher or not. The thing is no criminals should get in. From other countries, if you are a convicted criminal you do not get a visa and they check your documents at the airport, you just do not get in. But the criminals from Mexico do get in if they want to. I think that is the difference and why they talk about Mexican crime waves. To say it again, it is not that Mexicans are inherently more rapist, it is that from other countries rapists are not let in, but from Mexico they just come if they want to and that is what people get mad about.

This is what I am saying, the border should be strong enough to not let in criminals. Other questions about how much workers are needed etc are a separate issue, there are plenty of workers around the world who would come if you give them the green light and you can check their background.

I don't think it is currently strong enough if millions of illegals have got through and Kate's killer got in 6 times. Investing more in border control a lot of criminals can be kept out I think.

 

[Finny]

My point is that the next flux is negative, more criminals are leaving than entering.

Your source??
Why would criminals leave?

But there is _no evidence whatsoever_ that criminals , rapists , etc. are coming in in any significant amount.

Your source??

Even the federal government, who in all probability catches only a small percentage of illegal alien convicted criminals that are actually in the US, reports this:

In FY 2014:

• ICE conducted 315,943 removals.
• ICE conducted 102,224 removals of individuals apprehended in the interior of the United States.
  • 86,923 (85 percent) of all interior removals involved individuals previously convicted of a crime.
• ICE conducted 213,719 removals of individuals apprehended while attempting to unlawfully enter the United States. http://www.ice.gov/removal-statistics#ft4
• 56 percent of all ICE removals, or 177,960, involved individuals who were previously convicted of a crime.

http://www.ice.gov/removal-statistics

There is really no way of preventing (supposed) criminals ... from coming in, even with border controls. You _cannot_ in the real world keep all criminals out.

By THAT faulty logic, we should not have neighborhood police either: In the 'real world' we can not stop all criminals, even with a criminal justice system. So let's create 'police free zones'. Let's give up our society.
But please, don't start that social justice experiment in my neighborhood.

If there is no wave of rapists, criminals and drug dealers coming in, the whole discussion is pointless...

I think not. We will have to disagree on that one.
//////////////////////
“Not all illegal aliens are crossing into the United States to find work. Law enforcement officials indicate that there are individuals coming across the border who are forced to leave their home countries because of criminal activities. These dangerous criminals are fleeing the law in other countries and seeking refuge in the United States.”

“A Line in the Sand: Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border,” Majority Staff of the House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Investigations (October 2006),

///////////////////////
The Obama administration estimates roughly 60,000 unaccompanied children will come across the border to the US in 2014... In 2014 tens of thousands of women and children, many children unaccompanied by their parents, came to the United States from Central America. Most simply crossed the Rio Grande and turned themselves into to the Border Patrol, relying on the belief, partly well founded,[23] that United States law made special provision for illegal immigrants who were children.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illeg...ed_States#Children_of_Undocumented_Immigrants

 

[WWGD]

Your source??
Why would criminals leave?
Your source??

The burden of proof is on you, you endorsed the claim made by Trump, so in that sense it is you who is making the claim..
In FY 2014:

• 
  

  <Snip>

By THAT faulty logic, we should not have neighborhood police either: In the 'real world' we can not stop all criminals, even with a criminal justice system. So let's create 'police free zones'. Let's give up our society.
But please, don't start that social justice experiment in my neighborhood. [\QUOTE]

That is not what I meant. When you have a system that is maximally-effective , here at keeping criminals out, changing it will do nothing. I do not suggest that just because we cannot keep all criminals out that we do nothing"

<Snip>

I don't have time to address all your points now, I will try to address them later.

 

[Finny]

My point is that the next flux is negative, more criminals are leaving than entering. There is really no way of preventing (supposed) criminals ( the still _alleged_ criminals Trump mentioned) from coming in, even with border controls. You _cannot_ in the real world keep all criminals out.

The burden of proof is on you, you endorsed the claim made by Trump, so in that sense it is you who is making the claim..

I think not. Again, I never said any such thing. You said 'more criminals are leaving than entering' is your point.
I wondered where you got such an idea. I have never heard anything remotely like that.

All I claim is that Trump said we should control our borders and stop criminals at the border. I agree with that.

 

[Finny]

Why is Trump popular?
A not-so-flattering analysis. And a sad commentary if accurate.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/d...ashington Secrets - 07/27/15&utm_medium=email

"...Donald Trump is leading in the polls, drawing the largest crowds and dominating the headlines. What makes him such an attractive candidate?...the most important ingredient is his celebrity.

The Donald is benefiting from the fact that some conservatives are desperate to have their worldview validated by celebrities. Conservatives often insist they are above caring about the culture of celebrity. They criticize pop culture and accuse Democrats of being in thrall to Hollywood. But conservatives are just as prone to getting starstruck.

The conservative cult of celebrity was evident when Republicans gave Clint Eastwood a primetime spot on the 2012 Republican National Convention agenda to deliver a rambling speech to an empty chair…….Republicans were happy just to have the Hollywood legend on their side.

There are numerous other examples:Justin Bieber,Phil Robertson,the Duggar family…. Then there's bodybuilder and actor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who won the 2003 California gubernatorial recall election on the strength of his celebrity. Schwarzenegger ran as a Republican, elbowing out several more conservative candidates to replace the scandal-ridden Democrat Gray Davis...

….Arnold's celebrity status blinded Republicans (and others) not only to his ethical problems but also to his liberalism and lack of competency. Schwarzenegger went on the advance liberal causes that helped bankrupt his state.

 

[jim hardy]

.the most important ingredient is his celebrity.

I'd say that article by Daniel Allott deserves a " red herring " award.

Trump is tapping into the subdued anger harbored by many over the economy, inflation, and the mass psychological manipulation that thrives under the euphemism "Political Correctness" .

At first glance it looks like Allott should stick to critiquing "Dancing With the Stars".

But to be fair to him, this phrase was almost accurate,

... it is his wealth and penchant for saying things other conservatives believe but won't say.

and Examiner is reputed to be conservative.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Examiner
I suppose maybe he just won't quite say it ?

The fellow doth protest too much, methinks...

 

[Finny]

I'd say that article by Daniel Allott deserves a " red herring " award.

yes, sort of limited in scope...perhaps too simplistic...still, different perspectives people develop are interesting.
This is the line that lost me: "But conservatives are just as prone to getting starstruck. "

Why would I want to shake hands with most Hollywood stars...Clint, yes. Arnold? not so much. Also, maybe Pitbull: he's funding a high school in his old Miami neighborhood for disadvantaged kids...I passed it by boat maybe three/four years ago, likely open by now. Bravo.

Besides, Isn't any 'Trump celebrity' a different style than 'Hollywood celebrity'? Did Reagan 'celebrity' help him get elected? As I recall, the mess media made fun of him for being 'only an actor' trying to portray him as an empty suit. I don't think many conservatives voted for him because of his Hollywood celebrity.

 

[jim hardy]

"Pitbull" ? I never heard of him 'til now.
He's running for mayor ? http://whereby.us/daledade/
Probably you will get to shake his hand.
Small world - i grew up in Miami, near the airport. Before South Beach was 'discovered' .

Did Reagan 'celebrity' help him get elected?

I was in my early twenties when Reagan ran.
What turned me to him was his morning radio broadcasts about current events, i was impressed by his common sense, listen-ability, and apparent integrity.
He seemed just what the country needed after Johnson, Nixon, and almost Agnew. Mind you Ford and Carter were honest fellows, just the country was so rife with anger at "the system" (like now) we wouldn't have re-elected George Washington.
For me to vote Republican was a turn of events as my parents worshipped FDR and the Democrat party. Dad said I caused the earthquake in California.

I think Allott's characterization underestimates the average person's insightfulness.

We'll see.

Politics makes strange bedfellows . So long as we're speculating,
What would you think of a Donald Trump / Jon Stewart ticket ?