Dont have the video but that Luntz focus group in Uncle Wiggly's Pig Shack was something to behold. One lady says "George Soros is behind this!" (Jew box ticked) Another "Roy Moore is an honorable man of God!" (Jewish messiah box checked) How come I (Luntz) couldn't find any black Moore supporters? "Alabama rid itself of all racial problems after the 80s and only when Obama was elected that race relations got worse" another said, exact quote "In my opinion they be stupid" (Race relations just fine until Obama showed up and was all black & stuff box checked) And the topper...Cecil B. DeLuded from Cornhole, AL with the "well 40 years ago there's a lotta mommies & daddies who would be thrilled that their 14 year old was being hit on by a district attorney" (End of Civilization box checked)
That makes sense. I don't know how any non-Republican could believe that a Republican Presidential nominee would be less likely to favor the wealthy than Congressional Democrats. I mean, come on. The only analysis I can find about Trump voters' economic anxieties is either anecdotal, or inferred, as in 538's work showing that white voters in counties that were losing jobs were likelier to vote for Trump. No doubt there were some direct poll questions to that effect in 2016, but I haven't seen them.
I believe that polling data at the precinct level really undermined the "economic anxiety" narrative, IIRC.
Given the state of the US economy in 2008, it might've actually been economic anxiety. The kind without quotation marks.
It still amazes me that Barack Obama could have been dead right about saving the auto manufacturers, the GOP's 2012 Presidential nominee dead wrong in saying they should expire ... and Michigan's voters forget about that in the 2016 election. What? How? It is not as if the guys who were wrong were trying to help them ... the guys who were wrong were the ones arguing that if Michigan fell into the lake, nobody should throw it a lifejacket. I can't wrap my head around that one, just can't.
But, in a heartbeat, he'll have Thrush and Haberman in the Oval Office to tell him these exact same things in an interview.
Not that I am able to provide profound analysis, but this seems to me to be of a piece with the Republican tax plan. What you campaign on is not what your politics and goals in office are. I think that a substantial number of traditional Republicans politicians and policy shapers would agree that a business/industry in trouble should not be bailed out by the government. Republicans who want to get elected obscure this belief and tendency out of necessity -- can't get elected by telling people you aren't going to help them keep their jobs. Same applies in a different way to the tax plan that is going to conference. Can't tell people you are going to cut Medicare and Medicaid, so talk about how you are going to make them better. But they are "failing" programs/businesses as well, at least in Republican eyes, and as such they need to be left by the wayside as more effective policies and programs are enabled. Of course, it is hard to identify any of these policies and programs... The needs that are served by the programs, industries, and companies that Republicans are starving of support are visceral, and as such, speaking to these needs in logical terms will more often than not come off second-best to appeals that trigger more emotional reactions.
We are stuck in a tweet-tv-tweet time loop http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...w-uncomfortable-after-two-or-three-days-peace
This is just vile and obcene..........No words. Lightweight Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a total flunky for Chuck Schumer and someone who would come to my office “begging” for campaign contributions not so long ago (and would do anything for them), is now in the ring fighting against Trump. Very disloyal to Bill & Crooked-USED!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2017
I don't know how many times I read that this morning trying to understand what it meant or what it was trying to insinuate.
Worse than the "Romney on his knees" comment. That was Trump trying to be funny. This is incredibly offensive. The man is simply a disgusting pig. No, that is disrespectful...to pigs, which are intelligent AND tasty.
It thinks women of all levels, not just Eastern European strippers...sorry, underwear models...are there to service him.
Umm, I read that Sen. Warren said he was "slut shaming" with that tweet. Is that the proper term to use? Cause isn't slut shaming where you degrade a woman for being promiscuous. Thus meaning Sen. Warren is defending Sen. Gillibrand for performing oral sex for campaign donations. OR am I completely wrong about the meaning of "slut shaming"?
Jeepers. If the next big revelation regarding sexual assault is for female politicians to admit to being forced to perform sexual favors for campaign contributions... That would be huge.
To make it worse - what if Shelly Adelson was the #1 recipient of such favors? U ever see that creepy motherf#cker?
As far as I have seen, the term has taken a more broader meaning, a larger idea of female empowerment. Na, doubt it.