Never underestimate the stupidity of the American electorate. Frank Luntz (I know, he’s horrible and not to be trusted) reported the results of a survey of Republican voters.
But supporters mostly explained that they found Trump’s message — which is pitched to a third-grade level — appealing because it was easy to understand.
“We know his goal is to make America great again,” one woman said. “It’s on his hat, and we see it every time it’s on TV. Everything that he’s doing, there’s no doubt why he’s doing it — it’s to make America great again.”
Luntz showed the participants recordings of Trump insulting women, bragging about himself and reversing his previous positions on a variety of topics — but the vast majority said they only liked him more after watching the videos.
Good god. So this hat would actually work?
I am beginning to fear the results of the next election.
Agreed. Many on the left seem to be taking delight in the highway wreck that is the Trump campaign, but I’m much more worried about the long-term effects. Trump is once again moving the Overton window.. so much so that it now seems be centered on frothing insanity rather than anything like policy or even political philosophy.
Wasn’t it Jean Jacques Rousseau who said you can’t have a democracy without a universal education system (that works).
Ignurent…and derned proud uv it!
*chew, spit*
(Yes, yes; stereotyping and alla that.)
–
#NotAllRednecks
–
nathanieltagg @1:
Hopefully Sanders is doing the same thing on the other end.
It might; it only has single-syllable words on it.
Beginning to?
Well that’s why the other candidates aren’t getting any traction — they haven’t embroidered their slogans on their clothing. Now that Luntz has revealed the secret, I think we’ll see the Republican race tighten up considerably. Jeb! in particular should find it easy to do because he doesn’t even need to use syntax.
This sounds very familiar.
Whadayyamean again?
I can understand supporting a candidate who doesn’t use all the doublespeak we hear from the people in power. And I see how Trump is exploiting that attraction, to feed his oh~so~hungry~ego. *ugh*
Then, given the drek that he spews is so easy to understand (verbally, not rationally): he would be the person I’d LEAST want to be POTUS. *yukk*
I keep hoping the polls are asking the question in ambiguous phraseology resulting in Trump topping the results. EG:
ambiguous:
unambiguous:
Not having seen these poll questions first hand: I’ll just pessimistically assume the latter question was asked, and Trumpdoom is approaching.
Reminds me of the Kids in the Hall “Beaver Patrol” sketch.
It’s just early polling. People are trying to influence the election with their answers just as much as the politicians and pundits are. Wait till January and we’ll see a lot of “opinions” start to change. Next November we’ll have another 2 establishment candidates willing to stew away the presidency to avoid upsetting the Rich White People apple cart too much.
Not that I’m not LOVING the show. I wish Bernie Sanders was someone to push the Overton Window to the left, he’s just really not at all radical. Trump is a whack-out right winger the likes of which we haven’t seen since Buchanan. The left hasn’t seen anyone radical and popular enough to pull the window away from the right since 2000.
So, I know he is working for the wrong team, and very successfully, but I’m curious why you think he can’t be trusted? I haven’t followed him closely, mostly when he was doing stints on Colbert and he seemed pretty forthright about how he was paid to manipulate language to manipulate people…
@13
There was someone radical and popular enough in 2000 to shift the window?
Oh, you must mean Ralph *spit* “Not a bit of difference” Nader and his vanity campaign.
Thankyewverymuch I don’t think we on the left need that kind of ‘help’ again. Anyone who possibly thinks that Al Gore’s response to 9/11 would be “invade Iraq” needs their head examined.
The last person to successfully yank the window that far to the left was Franklin Delano Roosevelt; and the other side has spent the last 80 years yanking it to the right.
@brucej #15
Just reread an old article the other night about Ralph Nader’s campaign from 2000; reading his comment about Gore and Bush being “political clones” is infuriating in 2015. Almost the entire Bush II presidency and the catastrophic state of Iraq since 2003 (and much of the Middle East in the same time) are reason enough for me to despise such contrarianism.
Michael Anderburg @13, I’ve had the same thoughts about Sanders and the Overton Window. Not only is Sanders not all that radical, there is just one of him. The republicans have 17 people pulling in the same direction, though some harder than others.
The astonishing thing to me, though, is that people on the right really see it the reverse of the way we do. They think Fox is too fair and balanced, Ted Cruz is center right, and Obama is waaaaay left. Sanders isn’t even on the left/right scale to them, he is a Socialist and therefore un-American beneath consideration.
Same problem in Italy.
The right-wing candidate is blaming everything ever to immigrants, and he’s becoming very popular.
He offers a simple solution to complex problems.
This appeals to our human laziness, to our desire to feel we understand an overwhelmingly complex world.
Trump’s hat seems to be attracting a lot of white supremacists.
Cross posted from the Moments of Political Madness thread:
BuzzFeed News link
Category of “endorsements you don’t want?”
Read more: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/08/11/discuss-moments-of-political-madness/#ixzz3jrpKIGXb
Cross posted from the Moments of Political Madness thread.
Read more: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/08/11/discuss-moments-of-political-madness/#ixzz3jrpy0sL5
This comment includes some background on Trump, examples of his appeal to white supremacists, and a discussion of the Trumpian method of appealing to doofuses:
I know this comment is one big wall-of-text, but it’s worth it for the depth of the discussion. The article by Evan Osnos is worth reading in its entirety.
Michael Anderburg @13,
On some issues, he is. But it can be argued that in many ways, he’s the LEAST right-wing of the Republican candidates:
— he’s in favor of eliminating the “carried interest” loophole that allows hedge fund managers to be taxed at a lower rate
— he’s in favor of funding Planned Parenthood as long as the money isn’t used for abortions (of course, this is already the law)
— he’s critical of the Iran nuclear deal, but unlike the other candidates he is not vowing to tear it up, he says he’ll live with it and enforce it vigorously
— in general, he’s repudiating the “all compromise is selling out” paradigm and insisting that he would cut deals with Democrats in Congress
This is not meant to be an endorsement of Trump, by the way. If anything, it’s a sad commentary on the Republican Party if Trump is the closest they get to a “moderate.” I just think that the problems with Trump aren’t so much his ideology (though a lot of it is problematic, too), but his general approach. He pretends like every problem is simple, and all you have to do is put a strong leader/negotiator/whatever on the job and it’ll all be fine. Of course, all candidates dabble in this from time to time — Jeb “I’ll grow GDP by 4%” Bush isn’t really peddling anything more specific than Donald “I’ll make America great again” Trump — but most of them at least pay lip service to the notion that some issues are complex.
Trump is like that loud drunk at the bar who thinks he’s got the answer to everything. Immigration? “Deport ’em. And build a wall.” How to pay for that? “Mexico will pay.” Why? “Because they’ll have no choice, you just gotta be tough with ’em.” It’s easy solutions to complex problems, and there’s a segment of the population that eats that up. (I’m reminded of that very mediocre movie “Dave,” where Kevin Kline’s character finds himself impersonating the President, and he manages to balance the federal budget by sitting down at his kitchen table with his neighbor the CPA. Yep, no tough choices to be made, no priorities to negotiate or sacrifices to make, just good ol’ common sense will do the trick! Yes, I’m probably making too much of a largely frivolous comedy.)
Please be ‘The Onion’, please be ‘The Onion’… No? Dammit.
I guess Lee Atwater was actually wrong. People aren’t satisfied with the so-called abstract “forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff.” They want the slurs and have been frustrated that they’ve felt that they weren’t allowed to use them, so there is all this support for Trump, who seems like he’d support any racial slur you’d care to use.
@brucej:
Nader didn’t split the vote. Gore won. Sorry Bush and SCOTUS screwed your party out of office, but Nader was a scapegoat like Perot was a scapegoat. If you want to ban 3rd parties, go ahead and make your argument, but aside from the extremely well documented case that Gore WON Florida, it’s equally well documented that the vast majority of Nader voters would never have voted for a right wing Dem like Gore. The rest would have split off about evenly. Let me know if you’re interested and I’ll send you the links.
@HolyPinkUnicorn:
You, like many credulous members of the two-party system have trouble when the rhetorical differences between the two parties are scrutinized against their actions. I am constantly staggered that people think Gore/Lieberman’s foreign policy would have been any different from Bush/Cheney, considering how similar the latter was to the Clinton/Gore foreign policy.
MA., Alito and Roberts. Two names that Gore wouldn’t have had in play. There are differences between the parties, and you not thinking so shows you are out on the fringe.
I am on the fringe, yes, I campaigned for Nader, McKinney, and every Green back to 1990. I’m a socialist that thinks every
However, Gore would have indeed given us Roberts, indeed Roberts has been as good for Democrats as he is for Republicans. If you think Gore would have appointed anyone resembling Sotomayor you are seriously confused.
I don’t get why the left hates Trump so much.
#1 – He is to the left of most of the Republican candidates on many issues (Planned Parenthood, Gay marriage, Abortion rights, Taxes on the rich, etc).
#2 – Issues on which he is clearly part of the crazy right (Immigration specifically) his actual policy positions are hardly any different than any of the other Republican candidates. The major difference is his statements and comments are as racist as his policies. Which, IMO, makes him far better than the rest of the republican field who are equally racist in terms of policy, but are able to use dog-whistles so their terrible policies are not obvious to independents.
I think this is another Harriet Miers. The left got so hung up about her qualifications, they ignored the fact that her positions were fairly moderate. The left threw a fit and instead we got Alito, who is way further to her right.
If there’s one think liberals are really great at, it’s shooting ourselves in teh foot.
Michael Anderburg is correct. Nader did not cost Gore the election. The Supreme Court suspended democracy and crowned Bush, a fact that Scalia later bragged about. Turning your ire at third parties works perfectly for the people that bankroll the duopoly candidates. They can do all their shopping in two places and not have to worry about populist and grassroots movements that won’t accept their money. If you want real political change, push for representative democracy, range voting systems or other electoral changes. Unlimited money, denial of ballot access to third parties and independents, and partisan redistricting have relieved elected officials from either party of having to represent the interests of the middle class and the working poor.
addicted44: “I think this is another Harriet Miers. The left got so hung up about her qualifications, they ignored the fact that her positions were fairly moderate.”
Yeah, principles are such a burden for a movement. It would be so much better to abandon then for political expediency.
Seriously, Harriet Miers was not only grossly under-qualified for a SCOTUS appt, she was a major Bush sycophant. That was the major problem. At least with Alito one can stand behind the principle that the POTUS gets to appoint those he feels is appropriate.
But really, if you don’t get why the Left hates Trump so much you are either unfamiliar with the basic politics of the left. You could start with immigration. I personally think he’d make a better candidate than most of the republicans that were in the debates so far, but supporting him as a compromise candidate is a row too long to hoe for anyone who isn’t a total racist, among other things.
@Michael (#29)
I don’t understand how supporting Alito is standing behind the principle “the POTUS gets to appoint those he feels is appropriate.” considering Harriet Miers was the one the POTUS at the time felt was appropriate.
And supporting the Alito nomination was standing behind liberal principles? I wasn’t in favor of the Miers nomination. My point was that she was still a lot better than anyone else liberals could have hoped Bush to have nominated.
Also, I’m not talking about supporting Donald Trump (rereading my comment I can see how someone can get that idea). What I was trying to point out is that outside of maybe John Kasich, Trump is probably the best candidate Dems can hope for from the Republican side (although in today’s Republican party, the best candidate is either a batshit crazy nutjob, or a corporate tool who has to pretend to be a batshit crazy nutjob to keep the rubes happy). What I don’t get is the ridiculous amount of anto-Trumpism on the left, as compared to the rest of the Republican field, when the rest of the Republican holds largely as bad, or worse, policy positions as him, but also you have somoene like Walker, who is able to communicate his terrible ideas through dog whistles and not alienate independents. The same cannot be said of Trump. At least Trump is unable to hide his racism and disgusting views.
Everyone Republican candidate, even if they may not personally be racist, will almost certainly implement racist policies. I don’t get why people think Trump is unique in this regard amongst the Republicans. Seriously, the only difference is that Trump wears his racism out in the open, unlike the rest of the Republicans who are able to better hide it.
Broken Things @ 28
You’re ignoring the vital thing that allowed the SCOTUS to intervene – the race being so close. Had Nader not fucked the duck by running as a third party candidate and siphoning votes off from Gore in multiple states, the election wouldn’t have been close enough for the Court to do what it did.
Ralph Nader’s ego is responsible for the installation of W. Bush in the White House.
Michael Anderburg – No. Gore would not have nominated John Roberts to the Supreme Court. It never would have happened. Nor would Al Gore have invaded Iraq. He probably wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan since he wouldn’t have dissolved the anti-terrorist task force that was tracking bin Laden and wouldn’t have ignored his entire intelligence community telling him there was a direct threat prior to September 2001. If you honestly believe there is no difference between a Gore presidency and the trainwreck of Bush, you are beyond rational thought.
The “finding” that Trump speaks at a third-grade level is actually total nonsense. The Flesch-Kincaid grade level score that was used is basically a toy with little or no validity in the first place — and moreover, when applied to extemporaneous speech, it is extremely sensitive to the transcriber’s choice of punctuation. Connect phrases with dashes, commas, and semicolons instead of periods, and the grade level magically goes up.
Language Log has it covered. Friends don’t let friends use Flesch-Kincaid.
The problem with Trump’s “policies” is that I don’t think he possesses any core convictions whatsoever. Half the time he says whatever he thinks will play the best to the rubes, and the other half he says the first thing that comes into his head. If he was elected, I don’t think he’d feel he was bound by any policy he ran on or any promise he made — he’d wake up every morning and act on his whim for the day, even if it ran directly counter to whatever he was working on the day before.
@drst
“You’re ignoring the vital thing that allowed the SCOTUS to intervene – the race being so close. Had Nader not fucked the duck by running as a third party candidate and siphoning votes off from Gore in multiple states, the election wouldn’t have been close enough for the Court to do what it did.”
Your wild ignorance about how our electoral system and the SCOTUS work are making it difficult for me to give you any credit whatsoever in predicting what the Al “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country” Gore/Joe “We need not stretch to imagine nightmare scenarios in which Saddam makes common cause with the terrorists who want to kill us Americans and destroy our way of life” Lieberman may have done once in office.
addicted44: “I don’t understand how supporting Alito is standing behind the principle “the POTUS gets to appoint those he feels is appropriate.” considering Harriet Miers was the one the POTUS at the time felt was appropriate.”
Harriet Miers was so obviously a patronage ploy that it sickened even republicans, who are the reason the Miers nomination was scuttled. It’s one thing to support the system of checks and balances, it’s quite another to let a wildly under-qualified candidate who is completely in the pocket of the POTUS have the job. Alito is vile, but he, like Scalia and Thomas are their own persons and they are there in part because they are well qualified. If I accuse the POTUS of being an unprincipled hack by promoting another sycophant to a position of power like he did with Rice, Gonzales, etc., then it’s pretty hypocritical of me to argue against a thoroughly independent choice for the same reasons.
A judge who was so thoroughly in the pocket of the POTUS offends decency. Alito is just politically to the right.
Sorry, they are ideologues who barely qualify. Especially Thomas. You don’t seem to understand anything.
Nontheless he qualified, and far, far better than Miers. You are just being petty because you are a decent person and Thomas is an odious , slimy sleazebag.