Jump to content

Alright, who else here is voting for THE DONALD?


Carrie Mathison
 Share

Recommended Posts

What's risky about it? The people that are outraged about this were never voting for Trump. The people that aren't outraged about this are going to make up their mind on Trump for other reasons.

Back in August, I remember smart people saying he'd never get more than 30% of the vote in a general election, but it's obviously higher than that now. Maybe it won't matter in the larger scheme of things, but playing to people who are probably going to vote for him anyway while potentially alienating "anti-establishment" voters (Republicans, Democrats, Independents) who might be wavering between "intrigued" and "disgusted" by him on a daily basis just seems like a high risk-low reward gambit. Of course, the smart people/media (and me) have a pretty bad record of predicting people's reactions to his antics, so what do I know :)

 

That said, I do realize there are tons of people who wouldn't vote for him with a gun to their heads, and they'll complain about anything and everything he does -- of course disavowing or not doesn't really matter with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but playing to people who are probably going to vote for him anyway while potentially alienating "anti-establishment" voters (Republicans, Democrats, Independents) who might be wavering between "intrigued" and "disgusted" by him on a daily basis just seems like a high risk-low reward gambit.

I don't think the number of people that are wavering between genuine feelings of "intrigued" and "disgusted" number that high, and most of those people are already not going to vote for Trump (and probably never were).

 

The battle is more for the people that are wavering between "intrigue" and feelings of "ehh.. I kinda like what he's saying.. but.. come on! I can't vote for a reality TV star!!"

 

Either they'll ultimately buy what he's selling, and the intrigue (and feelings of disappointment in the direction of the country) will reach a high enough level that they can justify to themselves that they'll vote for what they previously didn't imagine as a presidential type figure... or they won't. Either way, it's not going to be decided on an issue like this.

 

It's them that Trump has to win. Them and increasing turnout of the people that are wavering between "intrigue" and "is it election day? Meh.. too lazy."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't argue with that. Maybe talk of "mainstream/establishment" Republicans voting for Clinton over Trump or staying home on election day rather than "sully their brand" is overstated and/or wishful thinking? Honestly, I have no idea what the fuck is going to happen here! Carry on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I think they certainly exist. Trump will lose some establishment votes, especially in the neo-con, McCain/Graham, nation-building, rabid pro Israel crowd. But I think they'll be offset by Reagan Democrats (talked about every election, but Trump being the first candidate since Reagan himself that I think can actually win some), as well as random disaffected types that just vote for whoever the most anti-establishment guy is. Many of the latter don't have consistent positions, and were formerly Ron Paul supporters (the reLOVEution types), and now many of which are, interestingly and paradoxically, Sanders supporters. The only consistent position I've noticed those people have, are typically anti-war, and Trump will be the more anti-war candidate this cycle (first time for the GOP since possibly the 1940s).

 

It's a wash, is what I'm saying. Where Trump is going to win or lose is in turnout of right-leaning independents, and moderates who, like I said, may buy a lot of Trump's ideas, but have to get over the hump of perceiving him as a buffoon and not presidential enough. And I just don't think this is the story that makes or breaks it for those types. Now the eventual Clinton/Trump debate- that's something that could (and that I can't wait for).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now the eventual Clinton/Trump debate- that's something that could (and that I can't wait for).

LOL... don't get ahead of yourself. I've been exchanging barbs with a rabid Rubio (OK -- whoever Fox/GOP says to vote for) supporter all day. She says the tide is turning! That Rubio will be able to collect enough delegates today to stay in the race until her fellow Republicans/independents figure out the con man's game and Rubio runs the tables all the way to the nomination!

 

No really, it's gonna happen, just have faith!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The battle is more for the people that are wavering between "intrigue" and feelings of "ehh.. I kinda like what he's saying.. but.. come on! I can't vote for a reality TV star!!" ... moderates who, like I said, may buy a lot of Trump's ideas, but have to get over the hump of perceiving him as a buffoon and not presidential enough. And I just don't think this is the story that makes or breaks it for those types. Now the eventual Clinton/Trump debate- that's something that could (and that I can't wait for).

 

By the way, I was one of these types. I got over the hump myself on Dec 7, the first post and impetus for this thread.

 

But me being a member doesn't make me representative of the group. I think the group is pretty diverse in background, both demographically, economically, geographically, and even ideologically... people with my background make up, maybe.. 15-20% of the group, at best? In this group you have soccer moms, South Park aficionados, legit fascists, people that like Bill Maher but think his guests are f-cking annoying, people in academia that hate their colleagues, rich people who don't care who wins, poor people who think Trump's a baller, uniformed people that tune in around October and vote for whoever is getting more positive media coverage, people that are sorta liberal but love Howard Stern, etc. It's a diverse group and really I think the only thing anyone in the group has in common, is willingness to (and actual history of) voting for both parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I mean, take British politics. It's the driest, eye-glazing-over-with-boredom inducing drivel. Jowly ham-robots (not as exciting as it sounds) pontificating about fiscal security in stuffy accents proclaiming "You, SIR! I disagree!"

What are you talking about? Have you ever actually watched the House of Commons when it's in session?

 

Way more entertaining than Congress, and it's not even particularly close.

I mean, I was being totally hyperbolic. I've never seen the House of Commons in the flesh.. Just the highlights the BBC cares to display. Sometimes I catch question time. I am trying to pay more attention now that the big debate is Britain voting on being in or out of the EU.

But I was mostly referring to how US vs UK politics are presented, and how they are engaged with by their respective populaces.

 

It seems like many Americans are much more involved in their politics than the British people are (Unless my perception of US politics is overly influenced by exposure to nightly.net) care passionately about it, or even care passionately about being dissolutioned with politics; people trade stats on polititians and that sort of thing, engage in talk as though politics is an everyday facet of life. Almost like you would a sports team, were you an avid fan.

 

In the circles I mix with in the UK that doesn't really exist. Or not to the same extent. Unless I am totally mistaken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So what, if anything, WILL work to steer people away from Trump? Nothing seems to have made a difference so far, so is there anything? Is it too late? Was it always too late?

If he wins Super Tuesday? Then, yeah, it was probably always too late. This scenario became inevitable about 20 years ago when, in a globalized world, liberals decided to abandon real issues and things that mattered to most average Americans in favor of manufactured, SJW novelty issues. Maybe 10 years ago there was a chance to still change course, but certainly not now. I'd go into more detail, but at risk of repeating myself- just read my previous post in this thread here.

 

Conservatives didn't help matters either. They've been in their own little world for quite some time now too. They're as much to blame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sweet Baby Jesus! The anti-Trump factions are amping up now. It's too late. The ugly side of America is in play and it gets out and votes. Boy, does it vote. Ted Cruz carried Texas and Oklahoma but Trump wasn't too far behind. I would feel better about Texas if say we'd given it to Trump but the GOP in Texas is genuinely full of dumb. Just look at our governor who endorsed Cruz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

So what, if anything, WILL work to steer people away from Trump? Nothing seems to have made a difference so far, so is there anything? Is it too late? Was it always too late?

If he wins Super Tuesday? Then, yeah, it was probably always too late. This scenario became inevitable about 20 years ago when, in a globalized world, liberals decided to abandon real issues and things that mattered to most average Americans in favor of manufactured, SJW novelty issues. Maybe 10 years ago there was a chance to still change course, but certainly not now. I'd go into more detail, but at risk of repeating myself- just read my previous post in this thread here.

 

Conservatives didn't help matters either. They've been in their own little world for quite some time now too. They're as much to blame.

 

Disagree. Well, what do you mean by "conservatives?"

 

Actually, it doesn't matter, cause either way, you're wrong. If you mean movement conservatives/religious right, etc, sure, those people live in their own world, but they don't create policy, don't really have a heavy influence in the direction of the country, and certainly didn't create the background conditions that gave rise to the Trump voter. They also don't talk as derisively about Trump voters (as liberals do), which is a big reason why Trump just gets stronger the more his supporters are insulted.

 

If, on the other hand, you mean establishment republicans, well, you're still wrong, for largely the same reasons. Just because establishment types have treated the Trump voter as useful idiots for over 20 years, doesn't mean, again, that they created the background conditions that gave rise to this voter. They, like the movement conservatives, also don't talk about the Trump voter with same amount of disdain. Sure, they don't particularly like them, but their reaction was, up until recently, just befuddled amusement. And even now, their attempt to de-rail the Trump campaign is hilariously half-assed.

 

Face it, liberal Democrats laid down the tracks, and SJWs drove the train. Just because some other Republicans showed up later on the sidelines and rooted for them doesn't mean they really had much to do with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw someone on Facebook use the term "micro-aggression" (because she picked a fight with a guy at the gym and he was sexist by virtue of being male and dismissing her argument) and suddenly it all clicked.

 

In a world where "punching up" results in "micro aggressions" when the other party stands up for themselves, Donald Trump is the only logical conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whenever I hear the term "micro-aggression" in a non-satirical or ironic manner, I have to wonder if that person has the perspective of having ever received a macro-aggression to the face.

 

That said, it's good to see White People Problems spreading to historically underserved populations. That is progress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 most recent FB updates:

  1. Something about a Chewbacca plushy
  2. Bernie Sanders is awesome because you can breastfeed your babies at his rallies
  3. Donald Trump, if elected, is going to install Hunger Games by 2018
  4. Donald Trump didn't answer this question about making America great again!
  5. This is not an election, it's an IQ test(unstated but clear subtext: don't vote for Donald Trump)
  6. Apple 1, FBI 1 (Ron Paul)
  7. Donald Trump didn't answer this question about making America great again! (reposted -- this one is being passed around a ton today)
  8. A list of all the business ventures Donald Trump has failed at, followed by the question "What makes him such a winner?"
  9. Republicans SILENT as welfare peeps pass their drug tests.
  10. Bill Clinton just violated election laws in Massachusetts!

So, 60% are specifically anti-Trump, 10% generally anti-Republican, 20% pro-Bernie Sanders/anti-Hillary Clinton, 10% SF oriented

 

People are losing their ****ing minds. I love it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it doesn't matter, cause either way, you're wrong. If you mean movement conservatives/religious right, etc, sure, those people live in their own world, but they don't create policy, don't really have a heavy influence in the direction of the country, and certainly didn't create the background conditions that gave rise to the Trump voter. They also don't talk as derisively about Trump voters (as liberals do), which is a big reason why Trump just gets stronger the more his supporters are insulted.

 

If, on the other hand, you mean establishment republicans, well, you're still wrong, for largely the same reasons. Just because establishment types have treated the Trump voter as useful idiots for over 20 years, doesn't mean, again, that they created the background conditions that gave rise to this voter. They, like the movement conservatives, also don't talk about the Trump voter with same amount of disdain. Sure, they don't particularly like them, but their reaction was, up until recently, just befuddled amusement. And even now, their attempt to de-rail the Trump campaign is hilariously half-assed.

Movement conservatives/religious right are not outrightly hostile to the "Trump voter" the way the progressives are, this is true. But they are just as much in their own world as the SJWs are - their issues are different, but no less frivolous and stupid when you get right down to it. And this is relevant. The underlying frustrations driving the Trump voter don't depend on whether Obama has a proper birth certificate or the ten commandments are on display at the local courthouse. Guns and Jesus don't pay the bills any more than speech codes or literary deconstruction do, and are off putting to no small number of working class white dudes - the South Park, "sorta liberal but like Howard Stern" and "Like Bill Maher but think his guests are f**king annoying" sorts, as you put it. Think the Amazing Atheist, or someone like that. Once Sanders (the true standard bearer of this crowd, as the Clinton campaign has highlighted as a foil to her own politically correct base) is out of the running, they'll be up for grabs for Trump in a way they could not be for an establishment or movement conservative Republican. Movement conservatism and progressivism alike deal in worn out cultural mythologies rather than policy substance, and between the two of them leave out a lot of people who don't fit into their narratives. Lord knows, neither address any of it with substantial policy initiative.

 

Plus, movement conservatives supported the establishment conservatives whose neo-liberal policies did far more to demonstrably harm Trump's electoral base than the sneering progressive hipsters, who guide high level policy no more than the guns-and-Jesus crowd do. Progressives might drive salt in the wound with their open disdain of the white working class, yes, but the wounds themselves were inflicted by economic policies whose origins were with the establishment conservatives, and depended upon movement conservative votes to gain the legislative strength needed to become reality, when they did.

 

Trump voters are opting for Trump rather than, say, Cruz or some other more typical moral/religious conservative because I think growing numbers of them are catching on to what a sham movement conservatism is. Decades of Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Gingrich and co, W, and the Tea Party, and what difference has any of it really made? No less political correctness, no less social liberalism, no less SJW. We've not gone back to God, traditional values or anything like that. Movement conservatism increasingly struggles to mask the stench of fraud and corruption that are, at core, its defining features. Now this may be true of Trump as well, but something in either his ideology or his delivery comes across as different and novel somehow. Enough, as you've pointed out before, to draw voters to the GOP that they haven't since Clinton or even Reagan's time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I mean, take British politics. It's the driest, eye-glazing-over-with-boredom inducing drivel. Jowly ham-robots (not as exciting as it sounds) pontificating about fiscal security in stuffy accents proclaiming "You, SIR! I disagree!"

What are you talking about? Have you ever actually watched the House of Commons when it's in session?

 

Way more entertaining than Congress, and it's not even particularly close.

 

I rather enjoy their mannered insults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 most recent FB updates:

  1. Something about a Chewbacca plushy
  2. Bernie Sanders is awesome because you can breastfeed your babies at his rallies
  3. Donald Trump, if elected, is going to install Hunger Games by 2018
  4. Donald Trump didn't answer this question about making America great again!
  5. This is not an election, it's an IQ test(unstated but clear subtext: don't vote for Donald Trump)
  6. Apple 1, FBI 1 (Ron Paul)
  7. Donald Trump didn't answer this question about making America great again! (reposted -- this one is being passed around a ton today)
  8. A list of all the business ventures Donald Trump has failed at, followed by the question "What makes him such a winner?"
  9. Republicans SILENT as welfare peeps pass their drug tests.
  10. Bill Clinton just violated election laws in Massachusetts!

So, 60% are specifically anti-Trump, 10% generally anti-Republican, 20% pro-Bernie Sanders/anti-Hillary Clinton, 10% SF oriented

 

People are losing their ****ing minds. I love it.

Oooo! I've seen all of those and then one about Bernie defining socialism. I get a lot more Cruz pushers though. Three people I went to high school bought the kool-aid and have been pushing why I should vote for Cruz mostly with the TrusTed slogan or something about Israeli Jew people supporting Cruz (think it was Netanyahu). But I have to admit Tami's Ted Cruz lip read post was the best. On the other hand I also know of two certified voter staffer volunteers who posted that this year there was record turn out for the primaries in Texas. Which is genuinely interesting. The two posts included graphs where some precincts reported more voters than the Clinton 90s voters for Democrats and Republicans.

 

In the above picture of Christie with Trump I believe that is Christie looking freaked out because Trump was saying something about Planned Parenthool that made him think "Christ. I take a lot of crap for the GOP. Did Trump just say he supports PP?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 most recent FB updates:

  • Something about a Chewbacca plushy
  • Bernie Sanders is awesome because you can breastfeed your babies at his rallies
  • Donald Trump, if elected, is going to install Hunger Games by 2018
  • Donald Trump didn't answer this question about making America great again!
  • This is not an election, it's an IQ test(unstated but clear subtext: don't vote for Donald Trump)
  • Apple 1, FBI 1 (Ron Paul)
  • Donald Trump didn't answer this question about making America great again! (reposted -- this one is being passed around a ton today)
  • A list of all the business ventures Donald Trump has failed at, followed by the question "What makes him such a winner?"
  • Republicans SILENT as welfare peeps pass their drug tests.
  • Bill Clinton just violated election laws in Massachusetts!
So, 60% are specifically anti-Trump, 10% generally anti-Republican, 20% pro-Bernie Sanders/anti-Hillary Clinton, 10% SF oriented

 

People are losing their ****ing minds. I love it.

Is mg your only FB friend?

 

I mean, aside from Ericka.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Movement conservatives/religious right are not outrightly hostile to the "Trump voter" the way the progressives are, this is true. But they are just as much in their own world as the SJWs are - their issues are different, but no less frivolous and stupid when you get right down to it. And this is relevant. The underlying frustrations driving the Trump voter don't depend on whether Obama has a proper birth certificate or the ten commandments are on display at the local courthouse. Guns and Jesus don't pay the bills any more than speech codes or literary deconstruction do, and are off putting to no small number of working class white dudes - the South Park, "sorta liberal but like Howard Stern" and "Like Bill Maher but think his guests are f**king annoying" sorts, as you put it. Think the Amazing Atheist, or someone like that. Once Sanders (the true standard bearer of this crowd, as the Clinton campaign has highlighted as a foil to her own politically correct base) is out of the running, they'll be up for grabs for Trump in a way they could not be for an establishment or movement conservative Republican. Movement conservatism and progressivism alike deal in worn out cultural mythologies rather than policy substance, and between the two of them leave out a lot of people who don't fit into their narratives. Lord knows, neither address any of it with substantial policy initiative.

 

Plus, movement conservatives supported the establishment conservatives whose neo-liberal policies did far more to demonstrably harm Trump's electoral base than the sneering progressive hipsters, who guide high level policy no more than the guns-and-Jesus crowd do. Progressives might drive salt in the wound with their open disdain of the white working class, yes, but the wounds themselves were inflicted by economic policies whose origins were with the establishment conservatives, and depended upon movement conservative votes to gain the legislative strength needed to become reality, when they did.

Sure, I don't necessarily disagree with your first paragraph. The establishment conservatives may be in the own world, true, and as I mentioned earlier, it's not particularly news that they see a large portion of their base as useful idiots. But again, this doesn't really address that establishment conservatives didn't create the conditions that allowed Trump to prosper.

 

Your second paragraph is more of a reason, but I'm not buying it. Yes, the Reagan-style conservatives began to implement a neo-liberal agenda that largely dictates our economic policy now, but they wouldn't have been able to do it without the help of the Left. What really caused neo-liberalism to cement was the Left completely abandoning any sense of economic leftism in the 90s. Slowly but surely, the Democrats became not all that interested in the economic well-being of the working class man, but more about the SJW agenda. By the 2000s, the only thing that really differentiated the Dems from the GOP is what cultural hot-button issues they pressed. Being a Democrat no longer meant being for rising wages, it was more about say, getting gay marriage legal, which was the defining issue of the Left for the past 5 years. Quite a far cry from the New Deal days. This was true in the 90s under Clinton, and even more so under the Obama administration, which let's be clear- his agenda has basically been a hodge podge of mainly Republican ideas. Take Obamacare, his signature legislation, which is really just an old GOP plan from the 90s. The only difference between Obama and any average Republican is that he doesn't necessarily draw attention to the fact that he isn't economically left, and he's more "in tune" with the cultural left and their "brand." That's it.

 

Now I'm not saying the Dems needed to be stuck in the doldrums of the Old Labor left of the 60s. I get that they were demolished in '84. But there was a way for the party to have modernized (even economically) without completely alienating its old base. But they didn't take that road, and now here we are. It doesn't help that the Dems took a very "us vs. them" mentality- you were either going to change your culture and get with the program, or you were considered basically no better than filth- and I really don't exaggerate that, many progressive leftists see those with traditional cultural values as lower life forms than even their dog. And these people that they considered subhumans, they probably would support a lot of leftist ideas, particularly when it comes to economics. But it's hard to get that support when you're shouting in their face and trying to get them fired because they said something "mean" on facebook.

 

Well, when you see people get pushed around time and time again, eventually some guy is going to come around that has some balls, looks at the SJWs and says, "you know what? F-ck you!"

 

This article explains a lot of this in more detail. Now I don't agree with all of it (and the author is a Rubio supporter), but it's worth reading. Key parts:

 

"Progressives are suspicious of truth claims, except their own. Trump makes sweeping statements with firmness and conviction, tenaciously holding on even when they are proven false—which is attractive to Americans who are sick of progressives’ self-serving narrative about how everyone is wrong except them. Progressives are suspicious of all authority, except when they wield it. Trump refuses to grant the progressive divine right to rule and flaunts his autocratic personae. Progressives are fixated on welcoming everyone, even to the point of abdicating routine border control and endangering national security. Trump feeds on fear and suspicion of outsiders.

Progressives, in their overreach, provoked their opposite. Their hypocrisy, double standards, and ruinous public policy have created a thirst for something, anything that looks and feels and smells different."

 

"Progressives never exclude anyone, under any circumstances, or ever suggest that anyone’s ideas or worldviews are wrong, except for those who disagree with progressivism. Trump capitalizes on the obvious hypocrisy, giving himself a free pass to exclude and demean whomever he wants—Mexicans, Muslims, immigrants, John McCain, Megyn Kelly, Russia, Islam, China, all politicians, all journalists, and so on. Voters like this not so much because they hate Mexicans and Muslims, but because they hate progressive bigotry and feel like Trump embodies a living rejection of it."

 

 

Or read this article; the confessions of several supporters of Trump (in secret). Many of which are professionals, even minorities. Notice a common thread in their complaints? What do they all seem to be railing against?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good post, CM.

When we've reached a point where one can be called a bigot for merely providing facts or asking questions that are threatening to dogma, eventually there is going to be a "Well effffffff yoooooooo!" breaking point.

And yeah, I totally agree that policy* is way less important than tribal branding. Mentioned that I was arguing with a Rubio supporter the other day who has convinced herself that if Clinton is elected "We won't even have an America anymore!" in four years. Pointing out to her that the "huge differences" in economic and foreign policy are primarily in how they are presented -- a matter of degrees, really -- doesn't matter, neither does pointing out that Clinton is probably closer to her on social issues. Doesn't matter: if a Democrat wins AMERICA IS DOOMED. I'm convinced most people just want the brand/tribe they identify in charge, with policy an afterthought (if it's a thought at all).


* with the exceptions of Sanders, who at best would accomplish 3% of his goals, and possibly Trump whose views seem to shift daily depending on who he is talking with -- but even so, both politicians have a "tribe" who strongly identifies with them (white, college-educated liberals for Sanders, low-information/income white males who feel they have "no voice" for Trump).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ RE: your * ^

 

Most Sanders supporters I know are early to mid 20's have-nots, who have a long list of things that they feel they are entitled to and are just waiting to obtain it without working for it. Like seriously, no shit - I'm about to divorce one of them. Just for examples sake, her four best friends also fall into this category. One has some education. Three do not. They all said "down with the white male career politician," and now they want to vote for one. Ex wife called me just today, trying to conjure up free work on her car from the guy who worked on it five months ago...because like, you know, it clearly must be his fault since he last worked on it, so she feels that he should fix it for free. It's so stressful. He has wronged her, and he must accommodate her.

 

Meanwhile, I'm literally behind none of these candidates, none of them have done jack shit to earn my support. Kiddie fights. Lies. Impossible promises. This election cycle feels like the final six months of my marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.