Jump to content

Alright, who else here is voting for THE DONALD?


Recommended Posts

I think that a lot of the "tells it like it is" crowd really mean that they like Trump because he isn't overly scripted and focus grouped to hell. Or at least he doesn't come across that way. And that portion appeals to people who hate him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 403
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Kurgan laying down some motherf-cking TRUTH right here.   Preach it.

Good lord. Two threads, same comment. Let's slam Trump for the Duke thing. Who else is that guy gonna endorse?   If you force feed PC bullshit down American throats, Donald Trump is what you get.

Posted Images

There was a big chunk of people that liked W because he was a good ol' boy that didn't always come off as Politicobot. I think there is a lot to be said about legit personality and seeming like a human.

 

Obama has a lot of charisma. Bill Clinton went on MTV News and played Sax on Arsenio Hall and secured the youth vote like whoa.

 

I can see the appeal of Trump to people who are just sick of politicians in general.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A large faction of the GOP (if not a majority) never really cared about economic conservatism.

 

Just like most Dems don't particularly care about economic issues either.

Why get worked up over stuff they agree on?

Link to post
Share on other sites

He's been presumptive nominee for like 15 minutes and Trump has already signaled a lurch to the left on minimum wage and taxes. What amazes me is hardly anybody seems to care or notice.

 

Sean Hannity was just fighting some of Trump's critics saying "Come on haters, name one position he's not conservative on." Wonder how that's gonna work out for him?

There are a LOT of conservative pundits, particularly on talk radio, who have pretty much flushed their credibility as actually believing in conservatism down the toilet. If nothing else, Trump has flushed out the ones that are only in it for the ratings and money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that depends on how you define "conservative pundit."

 

If by "conservative pundit" you mean somebody who is vaguely or moderately conservative in ideology, but for the most part just likes to make fun of liberals/political correctness (e.g. Lars Larson, Bill O'Reilly), or somebody who obsesssses about "language, borders, culture" (Michael Weiner), it's not a surprise or that inconsistent that they're cheerleading for Trump. It's about culture/populism, and they know their audience.

 

If by "conservative pundit" you mean somebody who has long called themselves a philosophical conservative -- "Hi, let me tell you 20 times in the next two hours that I'm a 'Reagan Republican!'" or "I'm a conservative, which means I'm a classical liberal; let me explain to you what that means until you slit your own wrists!" -- (e.g. Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity) -- unless they've truly convinced themselves, despite much evidence to the contrary, that Trump has become one himself, they're clearly just in it for the ratings or, like the first group, because they care more about beating up on Democrats than promoting an ideology.

 

BTW, Glenn Beck has always seemed like a desperate money/ratings chaser. I remember waaaaay back when he was this embarrassing shock jock/libertarian hybrid. But he's actually stuck by his guns on Trump, I'll give him that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me, or does it look like "right wing-ism" is going through now what the left went through in the late 80s and early 90s? A sort of crisis of identity arising out of the fact that their most cherished beliefs turned out to be a complete bust. Back then, the break up of the U.S.S.R and the defeat of democratic socialism (think Ronald Reagan/Margaret Thatcher here) sent the lefties into a tailspin that they've only kinda recently came out of. I'm convinced that the presidency of George W. Bush had the same basic effect on the center right. 9/11, weapons of mass destruction that were not, waterboarding, hurricane Katrina, the Lehman bro's meltdown discrediting (rightly or wrongly) the de-regulationists in a manner comparable to the way stagflation discredited Keynesianism, on and on. The neo-cons were most definitely NOT too big to fail. The 2000s were like the 1970s in their disillusionment with the established political order. Talk of small government and trickle down economics these days will get the same kinds of eyerolls today as I distinctly remember new deal era platitudes getting back in the 80s.

 

First with the new atheism, giving evangelical Christianity the same kind of ideological thrashing that the vengeful moral majority was giving the all-you-need-is-love types back in the days of AIDS and Iran-Contra. Where religious cable T.V networks once saw licentiousness everywhere in popular culture, campus SJWs now see racism and misogyny everywhere. Most right wing punditry I've seen in the last eight years has been rank bitterness over the Obama presidency. Anti intellectual and wrapped up in crack-pot conspiracy theories, the right wing media machine delivers hysterical entertainment to its base, but is out of touch with the mainstream. Again, the socialist press, such as it was, back in the early 90s was very much the same, carrying on about globalization, and so on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"Hi, let me tell you 20 times in the next two hours that I'm a 'Reagan Republican!'" or "I'm a conservative, which means I'm a classical liberal; let me explain to you what that means until you slit your own wrists!" -- (e.g. Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity)

 

I was thinking of that group. Plus some politicians like Gingrich, Christie, Sessions, and Palin would fall in there as well. Hannity and Coulter weren't a big shock, but I will admit that Ingraham and, to a lesser extent, Limbaugh surprised me.

 

 

 

BTW, Glenn Beck has always seemed like a desperate money/ratings chaser. I remember waaaaay back when he was this embarrassing shock jock/libertarian hybrid. But he's actually stuck by his guns on Trump, I'll give him that.

 

That actually doesn't surprise me. Beck's a rather fragile guy from a mental health standpoint, and regularly pushes himself unwisely. That's the "shock" you see as he goes over the edge. But it comes from caring too much, not necessarily from chasing ratings as he's quite capable of self-destruction (as he did for Cruz this time around).

 

For what it's worth, I suspect that had he remained on Fox News through the 2008 election and kept himself from falling apart, he could have made a difference in shaping that election. He was amazingly effective at altering right wing thought, energizing them, providing them with information, and bringing in new converts while perched at Fox News. I did some work for Barnes and Nobles while he was on the air, and if he recommended a book, there was a big spike in demand for it. Maybe not Oprah big, but enough that I was wondering what was going on with this old book until I found out he'd recommended it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well duh. My point isn't that Trump will win LK. Clinton is obviously favored.

 

My point is that many a liberal has spent the last month, as Trump wound up the nomination, in glee- declaring the end of the election before it even began. That there's an absolute certainty that we're heading towards a landslide of epic proportions- 1964 redux. We might as well not even hold the election and just go ahead and crown Clinton now, cause only a few evil racists could ever vote for this buffoon!

 

Emotion and wishful thinking masquerading as analysis LK. That's my problem.

 

Will Trump win? I dunno. But I sure as sh-t ain't calling a landslide, not yet. Trump is a made-for-TV personality that's spent decades being a showman on camera , a salesman with decades of experience of getting people to buy sh-t, and beat 16 other candidates in a primary bloodbath where everyone was against him, spending hundreds of millions of $ against him, and literally calling him Hitler. He hits issues that a lot of Americans care about- raising taxes on the rich and Wall Street, anti-trade, anti-illegal immigrant, and just simply being a nationalist- which to the SJW's chagrin, is actually not all that unpopular with most regular Americans. And he's going against an un-personable candidate that's a neo-con and has ties to Wall St in a time where people's wages haven't gone up in years.

 

I'm not saying Trump will win. I'm just saying those conditions above aren't the ones that produce a landslide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When Kurgan votes, he votes Trump.

Don't tempt me.

 

Sanders was closest my opinions, Cruz furthest away. Between Clinton and Trump, I dunno, truth be told. Either one would have to convince me. And maybe either one could.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Yeah but you know national polls don't mean ****. It's all about state level electoral polls.

 

I wouldn't say they don't mean sh-t. They can't be used alone, but they certainly mean something. You can look at historical data at how far a state tends to poll from the national average, and then use that to make a relatively educated prediction about who is winning a particular state.

 

For example, the big swing states (OH, FL, VA, etc) are all within a point or so of the national popular vote. I think VA was almost exactly the same as the national popular vote in 2012. So if Trump is up 2 nationally, then we'd expect him to be ahead in probably at least one swing state, though not all. And that's basically where he is- up 4 in OH but down either 1 or 2 in FL.

 

Obviously you need the state polls as well, or your overall predictions will lack precision. But the national polls certainly mean something. The last 5 polls were: Trump +2, Clinton +3, Trump +5, Trump +3, Clinton +6. So basically a dead heat at the moment; but let's say you began seeing a string of polls of either candidate in the 10+ range, then that would tell you something about where we would expect the swing states to line up. Not enough to have the most precise state-level predictions possible, of course, but it gives you an idea. CNN had a poll in late April that had Clinton +13; clearly that's not the state of the race anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump got a consolidation bump when he became the presumptive nominee. Many Republicans who said they'd never vote for him, switched because he was the only other choice.

 

That's the good news. The bad news is that Clinton will consolidate the Sanders vote whenever he finally gives up. So she's got a bounce ahead of her too.

 

Clinton's still got a massive lead in the electoral college and Trump is more likely to put red states in play than compete in blue territory. If the joke gets stale and Trump starts losing, look for a piling on and for the bottom to completely fall out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why you think Clinton has a "massive lead" in the electoral college? What exactly is that based on?

 

In 2012 Obama won 9 out of the 20 polls leading up the election, Romney won 5 (and 6 were ties). Based on that, plus using the state polling data, it was reasonable to assume that the big swing states would all go for Obama in the 2-3 point range, and they all did (OH, FL, VA).

 

But it's not like those states are set in stone. It would've been easy for a Republican to say the same thing in 2004. Those states can swing, that's why they're called.. wait for it- swing states.

 

Yes, Clinton will get a bump once Sanders is out. Trump will get another one at the RNC, and Clinton will get one at the DNC. After that point, around Labor Day, we can look at the national polling and swing states and get a clearer picture whether or not Clinton has a "massive lead" in the electoral college.

 

What red states do you actually think are in play now? I think the same old states are going to be the competitive ones, but if you really think red states are going to be in play, then go ahead and put your money where your mouth is- list them, so I can bump this thread in Nov. I have a history on this board of correctly calling every election (and almost every single state therein), so if you wanna play this game, I'm fine with that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...