Re: the whys of Trump voters. I think a lot of it is summed up nicely by the work guys like Haidt have done. Political conservatives in liberal democracies score low on "openness to experience". They value safety, security, risk mitigation, tradition, rules, etc. Not as it relates necessarily to government but more in terms of how government impacts their lives directly. Keep things as they are/were. That's not going to appeal to POC or whites that score high on openness. For Trump that was law and order, strong military, low taxes, keeping immigration at bay, appeals to 50s-60s era manufacturing, tariffs, etc. It was all about identifying changes over the last 30 years and ascribing those changes to scapegoats: immigrants, the Clintons, Hollywood, coastal elites, excessive regulation, globalization and renewable energy stripping away "the dignity of the American blue collar worker". People were primed politically to respond with the notion that Trump could protect their security and way of life. A lot of racists loved it. A lot of conservatives who understood what he was doing were okay with it too because "team" and policy alignment elsewhere. For a lot of voters, I think Trump pulled off the political equivalent of yelling fire in a theater. His followers got up and ran. They don't see who they're trampling and they didn't care. It could be an Muslim or a Jew or an African American or even their own kids' futures. It's full fledged panic.
Most of the people I know that voted for Trump did so for the for the sole reason of Trump not being a politician. Close second seems to be a massive distrust in his challenger and a party line vote. I wasn't a supporter of Trump at any point and when we would have discussions about politics over beers, most seemed to brush aside Trumps idiotic comments on the campaign trail as hyperbole not to be believed, much like the promises all politicians make when campaigning. I do remember there being a bit of interest in the unconventional and unfiltered way Trump was using Twitter to bypass what is believed to be a biased media, which is still the case. Maybe they are telling me the truth, considering they all know my dislike of Trump and my propensity to vote for people they have never heard of, it wouldn't surprise me if a few were tempering their support for him when they discuss politics with me. My friends aren't racist, at least in my observation. The vast majority of my friends have been made playing, coaching and running soccer teams and come from a bunch of different cultural backgrounds. What seems to be universal is a dislike/distrust of all politicians, even the few in our group that actually ARE politicians. Take that however you want. I know it's anecdotal.
Would it be fair to say that these people fall into the latter category of people I described, but with the scapegoat of politics in general? They see their view of what the country was/should be slipping away, they blame politicians, so they vote for the non-politician, "he alone who can fix this"? Did they dismiss a lot of his incendiary rhetoric as "Trump as showman, he doesn't really mean it"? What do they say about these things now? Things like "many fine people in Charlottesville", the self created border crisis, the ties of many of his officials (past and current) to white supremacy movements, etc? Genuinely curious.
That's the same kind of thinking the Krafts used when they hired Jay Heaps and Brad Friedel. They weren't "typical coaches." I think that strategy works equally well in totally different areas.
A little conjecture, but there is a complete dissatisfaction with politics in general and voting for a true outsider, instead of the textbook definition of an insider, was seen as a positive. Maybe not as a fix, but at least as a message to career politicians. The only real heated discussion I was part of had to do with Trump using a reporters handicap as a way to make light of the criticism that reporter was heaving at him. If you know me you would know why this was a pretty personal argument, and to me showed Trump really doesn't care about anything other than himself and has no empathy. They still brush off his stupidity as showmanship.
Maybe, although I would argue that few politicians are really working for the people they represent after they get elected. It's more trying to keep their seats than doing what is good for the country.
I get the idea of voting for an "outsider," but they at least need to have a basic understanding of how things work. You know, like the idea that if you want something to happen, you have to get congress to write up a bill, gain enough support for it to pass, and all that stuff. You can't just decree that you want something done, like a king... Although I didn't agree with him, Ross Perot was at least a reasonable idea of a businessman who might have been able to do something in the office.
The Jon Steward effect, is why people like Trump (or say Bill Maher) can say what ever they want and their fans will laugh it up. https://www.economist.com/internati...en-politics-and-stand-up-comedy-are-crumbling
They said that a lot, and they got a lot of people to believe it, but it was bullshit. Just like everybody else, they believed and still do believe) in intrusive government when it's their beliefs being advocated in that intrusiveness. And unfortunately, for them, that's meant trying to keep the government intruding into women's bodies and gay people's bedrooms and so on. Don't forget "law & order". That's been abandoned too.
I know politics is derided but there is a certain skill to it. Look how horrible a negotiator this awesome businessman is. He's constantly owned by anyone with even a little moxie. Like he grew up in Columbus or something. Next time ask your buddies if they want an accountant, heart surgeon or lawyer with little or no experience and zero intellectual heft. Might put things in perspective for them. "I'm an outsider surgeon. I played Operation as a kid"
Considering the darling of the Democratic Party was a bartender 18 months ago I think your heart surgeon comparison is not the best [emoji23]
She's a congress-critter representing a district that is demographically pretty similar to herself. That's not the same as running the executive branch. Though given the frequency of her tweets, it's an easy mistake to make.
Yes, but they are fine with a racist as president. I really think that was the main point of many, many Trump voters nationwide. However, it is horrifying that not having a "career politician" was worth electing Donald f'n Trump.
Yes, but it is abundantly clear that the Congresswoman who was a "bartender 18 months ago" knows a hell of a lot more about how the government runs than the person your "people" chose as President of the United States.
We agree on this point. The one point of common ground here on BigSoccer, even if we disagree about politics, is that basically all of us pay pretty close attention (and, probably, way too much attention) to politics these days. Personally, I am longing for the day when I don't have to pay so much attention to politics and go back to paying too much attention to other things.
I can’t believe Gregg picked Marginal Joe instead f marginal Julian! It’s an outrage! He’s so biased! FHN!!
Indeed. More than once, I've wanted to tell someone "Having your friend drive a railroad spike through your dick with a sledgehammer would also be 'change', too; but I bet if you were presented with that option, you'd stick with the status quo. Change for the sake of change, without a thought about the details, is just soul-crushingly stupid.
I'm so old I recall Obama doing his job and maybe hearing something about an initiative his administration was doing or an appearance he made. Very low key. The we have this. The Idiocracy/WWE presidency of phony outrages and storylines and his fans who enjoy the rhetorical wedgies he gives out on Twitter on a daily basis.
The people who believe that inexperienced businessmen make better legislators than trained politicians are, by and large, the ones who buy time shares. They are intimidated/impressed by people who flaunt wealth and power and tend to take their claims at face value. I had several relatives like that. Ross Perot supporters back in the day. Very likely would have voted for Trump in 2016. Nice people, in many ways, but not progressive with their racial views and easy marks. Three of them got swindled out of their retirements by fast talking salesmen.
It’s not the businessman part, it’s the not a politician part. I know the posters in here like to categorize those that they disagree with but your description doesn’t fit the people I know.
That is fine and likely the case, but does not explain the enthusiasm for Donald Trump. There were several "non-politicians" on the 2016 Republican race (Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina), would they have chosen either over Hillary Clinton?