The video below of two women who call themselves Trumpettes (and wear T-shirts to proudly prove it) is quite revealing of the widely differing perceptions between supporters and critics of Donald Trump that I wrote about earlier. They defend Donald Trump and say that what most observers consider a bad few weeks and debate performance are actually deceiving. They believe it is all part of a grand plan to lull Hillary Clinton into a false sense of security and that he is going to simply rip into her at the next debate.
The woman on the left seems to be somewhat more thoughtful than her friend and is willing to consider that Trump might need to change some things and tone down some of his erratic behavior. But her friend on the right is a true believer who thinks that Trump ranks just below Jesus. I found her steely-eyed repetition of the Trump campaigns defenses of the indefensible quite disconcerting. It was like listening to a programmed robot.
Samantha Bee’s reporters Allana Harkin and Amy Hoggart talk with more Trump supporters who share the same lack of self-awareness as their hero.
I found her steely-eyed repetition of the Trump campaigns defenses of the indefensible quite disconcerting. It was like listening to a programmed robot.
Have you read “the authoritarians”?? I have my issues with social science by inventory, but Altemeyer does a very good job of inventorying a particular set of behaviors!
In the last election cycle, I got stuck in the back of a limo for 3 hours with a person who truly believed that Romney was going to crush Obama, and had made major life decisions around that assumption; she had sold her house and was moving to DC because she was sure she’d have a place in the new administration, etc. It was bizzare.
Marcus,
Thanks for reminding me about The Authoritarians. You had told me this before and I downloaded it but, with all the other things on my reading list, forgot to read it! I will do so soon.
The majority of those who will vote for Trump have only one concern—abortion. Other things they say in his defense are only excuses meant to clear the way for that tiny limited agenda. Anyone who cannot see that Trump cares only about being top-dog at all costs, including betrayal of Pro-Life advocates, is in a delusional state…
That would be pointless. The first debate is the one more people watch. After that, many of them figure they have seen what there is to see.
It is funny (in a sad and scary way) that the Russians are reportedly trying to steer Hillary’s campaign into a ditch, but they can’t keep up with the shitstorm that is burying Trump, which is being guided by no one.
@5
Romney had a strong showing against Obama in the first debate, Obama turned it around in the second and third. Don’t do an end-zone dance on the 50 yd line. Her hubris has put her on difficult places already, it can happen again.
A Lurker from mexico:
Heh. Your objection would have some force were it not that Trump’s hubris greatly exceeds hers.
(Why you persevere in producing examples of her faults but ignoring their relative degree of faultiness is beyond me; it is a flawed strategy)
Trump’s potential voters view his hubris as a virtue. Clinton’s potential voters view her hubris as an insult.
I ignore the relative degree of faultiness because it’s not relevant to the outcome.
A Lurker from mexico:
Yes, I undertand. Point being, if Clinton’s hubris is problematic, then so must Trump’s be on the very same basis, right? But you don’t dispute that Trump is more hubristic (kudos for that).
(Was not your objection predicated on the confounding factor that hubris might have no non-die-hard supporters? If so, more hubris, more problem, no?)
When Trump thinks he’s won, his hubris is channeled through him doing a peacock dance on twitter and exclaiming to the world how much of a winner he is. Yeah, i don’t dispute that he does it way more often. His resting face is a smug asshole smirk. It’s been successful with his base, though.
When Hillary thinks she’s won, her hubris is channeled through dumb campaign decisions. She tries to win over conservatives (who’ve hated her guts for decades) when she’s bleeding out millenials and liberals. Those attempts to court the republican demographic have harmed down ticket democrats and further insulted the people who were already leaving.
My point is that the things that kill one won’t kill the other. If tomorrow it was found out that Donald Trump’s net worth is $232,000 (the average net worth of people over 65), he’d lose all of his support in seconds (“Oh, he’s not special”). If the same thing happened to Hillary Clinton she would be perceived as more sympathetic and approachable (“Oh, she’s one of us”).
Trump being openly hostile to hispanics won him a lot of his current support. If Clinton did likewise she’d be committing political suicide.
As I see it right now, there are several things that are functionally strengths for one and weaknesses for the other. This is the case because they intend to appeal to audiences that differ wildly on political alignment, cultural context, education level and access to information.
A Lurker from mexico, good response.
People still keep saying things as though this election is just like all the ones before it, in the teeth of the evidence.
Since the first debate, a highly entertaining tape of The Donald has emerged. Surely everyone who tuned in last time, and a few more, are now going to tune in to see how he handles that?
I’m not convinced the tape wasn’t released by his own side…