Trump's Support

[GMDino]

I think Matt brought it up a long time ago in a thread, but despite winning a lot of votes Trump's not moving the needle very much.

Some numbers to back that up from 538.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-the-weakest-gop-front-runner-in-the-modern-era/

Quote:Despite getting drubbed in Wisconsin this week, Donald Trump has won more votes than any other Republican candidate this year. So, he’s doing OK, right? Well, for all the talk that unbound delegates and quirky convention rules could prevent Trump from winning the GOP nomination, it’s easy to forget that Republican voters also play a part. Trump’s 37 percent of the cumulative primary vote and 46 percent of delegates won so far may sound impressive, but his percentages make him the weakest Republican front-runner, at this point in the process, in decades.


Of course, a front-runner is still a front-runner, but by historical standards Trump is limping along — hence the increased chances of a contested convention.
This is the seventh Republican primary in the modern era (beginning in 1972) without an incumbent president in the race; here’s the cumulative vote percentage that each eventual nominee received over the course of the primary season in those seven campaigns:





Past GOP nominees such as George H.W. Bush in 1988, George W. Bush in 2000, Bob Dole in 1996 and Ronald Reagan in 1980 had bigger shares of the vote at this point, even if they started out slowly. You’ll also note, however, that the two most recent Republican nominees, John McCain and Mitt Romney, weren’t doing too much better than Trump is now.
McCain and Romney, though, were far ahead of Trump at this point in the delegate race. All the eventual nominees studied here won a majority of the delegates allotted1 by this date. Trump remains short of a majority.





You’ll also note that past nominees tended to increase their delegate and vote leads from this point forward, mostly because their rivals had faded or dropped out. In 2008, McCain vanquished Romney by early February and Mike Huckabee by early March. About this time four years ago, Romney lost his main competitor, Rick Santorum, after winning the Wisconsin primary. That left McCain and Romney with an easy road to winning larger and larger shares of the delegates and votes in the remaining contests.

[SteelCitySouth]

It's because the other two candidates are very good options as well.

[fredtoast]

It is a shame that no rational person could step in and take advantage of the dissatisfied voters who are buying Trumps snake oil.

Trump is not stupid. He is a brilliant salesman. He knows exactly who he is selling to and he knows how to manipulate them A lot of people who support Trump are not sexist, xenophobic nut jobs. They just hate all the other "insiders" who are running and are not smart enough to see how Trump is playing them.

[GMDino]

(04-12-2016, 01:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is a shame that no rational person could step in and take advantage of the dissatisfied voters who are buying Trumps snake oil.

Trump is not stupid.  He is a brilliant salesman.  He knows exactly who he is selling to and he knows how to manipulate them  A lot of people who support Trump are not sexist, xenophobic nut jobs.  They just hate all the other "insiders" who are running and are not smart enough to see how Trump is playing them.

I saw something the other day that said (paraphrasing) Trump isn't stupid...he just knows how to get stupid people to vote for him.

[fredtoast]

(04-12-2016, 01:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: I saw something the other day that said (paraphrasing) Trump isn't stupid...he just knows how to get stupid people to vote for him.

Elections are about marketing and Trump is good at marketing.  Just like music and popularity is about marketing instead of talent these days.  Trump is getting a lot of backers for the same reason that Justin Beiber and Kim Kardashian are the most famous people in the United States.

In politics it is all about tapping into the "fear of people different from us".  Tapping into the "bullies get what they want" idea.  Tapping into "money = right" mindset.

It is all about marketing and manipulation.  Add in the fact that Trump can play the "outsider" card at the same time that everyone feels like elected officials are ignoring the interests of the "common man", and you have a successful populist candidate.

[*michaelsean*]

People literally dismiss me when I tell them Trump has no chance in the general. I tell them he his support is under 50% in the damn Republican Party. "He's going to make it up with blacks and Hispanics and crossover Democrats. I saw a black person and a liberal looking dude at on of his speeches."

[*PhilHos*]

(04-12-2016, 01:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is a shame that no rational person could step in and take advantage of the dissatisfied voters who are buying Trumps snake oil.

Trump is not stupid.  He is a brilliant salesman.  He knows exactly who he is selling to and he knows how to manipulate them  A lot of people who support Trump are not sexist, xenophobic nut jobs.  They just hate all the other "insiders" who are running and are not smart enough to see how Trump is playing them.

(04-12-2016, 01:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: I saw something the other day that said (paraphrasing) Trump isn't stupid...he just knows how to get stupid people to vote for him.

I'm no Trump supporter, but can we stop labelling all his supporters as stupid? Or at least realize, the same should be said for those who support Bernie or Hillary. With Bernie, I can, at least, understand why people would vote for him - who wouldn't want free education, free healthcare, etc - but people don't seem to realize that nothing in life is free. And, sure, you can TRY to make only the rich pay for it, but the rich have this ability (probably because most of them have politicians in their pocket) to find loopholes and/or pass the bill onto the middle and lower classes.

But with Hillary, I honestly have no idea how anyone could support her. She has to be the most known-to-be-corrupt candidate since at least the advent of the TV. Her only 2 redeeming qualities are that she is married to a guy who was a decent president and she would be the first woman president in the history of America.

The fact that 3 of our top 4 choices for presidents are utter crap scares me, but not as much as the fact that people only seem to focus on only one of the turds. Who cares if he's the biggest or the smelliest piece of shit? THEY'RE ALL STILL PIECES OF SHIT! None of whom should be president.

At this point, I feel like I just wrote some 3rd party's ad. Like my next line would be, "And that's why I plan on voting for Turd Ferguson. He wears a big hat. It's funny!" At this point, the only thing left is to just laugh and hope Jesus comes back soon. 

[fredtoast]

(04-13-2016, 12:21 PM)PhilHos Wrote:  She has to be the most known-to-be-corrupt candidate since at least the advent of the TV.

You can't be serious?

Hundreds of politicians have gone to jail for being corrupt.  Hillary has never done anything close to that bad.

What exactly has Hillary done that makes her so corrupt?

[*PhilHos*]

(04-13-2016, 12:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You can't be serious?

Hundreds of politicians have gone to jail for being corrupt.  Hillary has never done anything close to that bad.

What exactly has Hillary done that makes her so corrupt?

I was speaking of presidential candidates.

But since you asked: Benghazi, the email thing, coverup of Bill's sexual "indiscretions", Chinagate, landing under sniper fire lie, Whitewater and those are the ones I could remember off the top of my head (to be fair, I read an anti-hillary article someone posted on Facebook this morning, but whatever).

A quick Google search turned up even more. I particularly like this one:
http://www.usapoliticstoday.com/watchdog-names-clinton-most-corrupt-politician-of-2015

I admit, it is only my opinion that she's the most known-to-be-corrupt presidential candidate, but there shouldn't be any doubt that she's corrupt. 

[Belsnickel]

(04-12-2016, 01:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Trump is not stupid. He is a brilliant salesman. He knows exactly who he is selling to and he knows how to manipulate them A lot of people who support Trump are not sexist, xenophobic nut jobs. They just hate all the other "insiders" who are running and are not smart enough to see how Trump is playing them.

I don't even know if it is intelligence, though. I'm sure that plays somewhat of a role in the bigger picture, but I was listening to a story on NPR one time that was describing how for some reason the people supporting him are more willing to give him a pass on things he has said and his flip-flopping. They will rail against everyone else for it, but they are the most likely to dismiss the position changes and outrageous comments as not being serious when coming from Trump than any supporters of any other candidates.

I'll have to see if I can find it, but it was pretty startling. I'd say it's more naivete than anything else, and smart people can be naive.

[fredtoast]

(04-13-2016, 12:43 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I was speaking of presidential candidates.

But since you asked: Benghazi, the email thing, coverup of Bill's sexual "indiscretions", Chinagate, landing under sniper fire lie, Whitewater and those are the ones I could remember off the top of my head (to be fair, I read an anti-hillary article someone posted on Facebook this morning, but whatever).

A quick Google search turned up even more. I particularly like this one:
http://www.usapoliticstoday.com/watchdog-names-clinton-most-corrupt-politician-of-2015

I admit, it is only my opinion that she's the most known-to-be-corrupt presidential candidate, but there shouldn't be any doubt that she's corrupt. 

Benghazi was a mistake that was corrected in 2 weeks and benefitted no one.

The "e-mail thing" has zero to do with corruption.

"Chinagate" was a political hack job that despite extensive investigation by a Republican controlled Congress never found any evidence that the Clintons were involved.  This a pattern you will see in many of the claims made about Hillary being so corrupt.  The claims are usually just based on right-wing rhetoric instead of facts.

"Whitewater"  see "Chinagate".  Despite being granted unlimited power to investigate Kenneth starr could nevere come up with any legitimate evidence against the Clintons.  Just another political hack job.  the Clintons actually LOST th9ousands of dollars on ther investment in whitewater.

The sniper fire comment was stupid, but again, no proof of corruption.


Basically all of the claims about how corrupt Hillary is are equal to claims that George W Bush was involved in the planning of 9-11.  They are nothing but political rhetoric without any legitimate evidence to back them up.

Just because you claim she is corrupt does not make it true.

[NATI BENGALS]

(04-13-2016, 01:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Benghazi was a mistake that was corrected in 2 weeks and benefitted no one.

The "e-mail thing" has zero to do with corruption.

"Chinagate" was a political hack job that despite extensive investigation by a Republican controlled Congress never found any evidence that the Clintons were involved.  This a pattern you will see in many of the claims made about Hillary being so corrupt.  The claims are usually just based on right-wing rhetoric instead of facts.

"Whitewater"  see "Chinagate".  Despite being granted unlimited power to investigate Kenneth starr could nevere come up with any legitimate evidence against the Clintons.  Just another political hack job.  the Clintons actually LOST th9ousands of dollars on ther investment in whitewater.

The sniper fire comment was stupid, but again, no proof of corruption.


Basically all of the claims about how corrupt Hillary is are equal to claims that George W Bush was involved in the planning of 9-11.  They are nothing but political rhetoric without any legitimate evidence to back them up.

Just because you claim she is corrupt does not make it true.

But but but... There are Fox News headlines every day that tell me how bad Hillary is and how she had top secret stuff in emails. She is probably really a witch spy from china who does side work for al qaeda in benghazi.

[BengalHawk62]

I BELIEVE IN FOX NEWS! 


FAIR AND BALANCED

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I'll merely point this out, no candidate in living memory had their political party actively campaigning and plotting against them nor an intense media campaign designed to persuade others not to vote for him.

[*bfine32*]

(04-13-2016, 01:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Just because you claim she is corrupt does not make it true.

But just because you claim Trump supporters are stupid does make it true?

Before you start: For every link you post about the education of Trump supporters; I can post 2 about Hillary being corrupt,

[*bfine32*]

(04-13-2016, 03:08 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: I BELIEVE IN FOX NEWS! 


FAIR AND BALANCED

So that would make you a Cruz supporter. 

[*Nately120*]

(04-13-2016, 12:21 PM)PhilHos Wrote: With Bernie, I can, at least, understand why people would vote for him - who wouldn't want free education, free healthcare, etc - but people don't seem to realize that nothing in life is free.  And, sure, you can TRY to make only the rich pay for it, but the rich have this ability (probably because most of them have politicians in their pocket) to find loopholes and/or pass the bill onto the middle and lower classes.

Meh, I realize nothing in life SHOULD be free but I must have missed where Republicans promised to spend decades on expensive wars and tax the hell out of us to make sure it's all legitimately paid for.  I'm not voting for Bernie Sanders, but I can see why people who watch our country write blank checks for trillion-dollar military initiatives might think Democrats can conjure up some free stuff too.

Then again, most warhawk neo-cons don't seem to consider a leviathan of a military as being "big government" either.  Hell if I know.  Republicans promise free bombings/safety/peace of mind and Democrats promise free healthcare.  I mean, is it possible to get elected by saying "You the voters want this, this and this, and all those things cost money.  IF you want them, I'm going to have to raise taxes and if you don't want that, then I have to question how much you really want this, this, and this."

I don't claim to know a thing about nothin' but in the 2000s I recall just asking the people who were convinced the war on terror was keeping us all alive why they were so against actually personally paying for it.  I like to think if I personally believed the government was keeping me alive, I wouldn't mind paying for it.  Is that illogical?  It's all about winning, so the best strategy seems to be promising the most free stuff and then kicking the can down the road until everyone who enjoyed said free stuff is dead and the bill can be pinned on someone else.

(04-13-2016, 10:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll merely point this out, no candidate in living memory had their political party actively campaigning and plotting against them nor an intense media campaign designed to persuade others not to vote for him.

Still seems pretty tame compared to what the 2 party system does to keep 3rd party candidates from looking viable in the least.  And damn, is it effective.  

[SteelCitySouth]

(04-13-2016, 10:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But just because you claim Trump supporters are stupid does make it true?

Before you start: For every link you post about the education of Trump supporters; I can post 2 about Hillary being corrupt,

That's literally not a good statistic for Trump supporters.  You know given Hillary has been around for decades while trump supporters have only been around for a portion of a year.  To have a two to one article difference would indicate that Articles about the sub-par intelligence level as compared to articles about how corrupt Hillary's, are exponentially increasing and may over take soon.  

[fredtoast]

(04-13-2016, 10:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Before you start: For every link you post about the education of Trump supporters; I can post 2 about Hillary being corrupt,

I can post actual facts.  

All you can post are politically biased allegations.

[*bfine32*]

(04-14-2016, 12:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I can post actual facts.  

All you can post are politically biased allegations.

STFU and do it.