James Fallow at The Atlantic makes the observation that the GOP is not behaving like in past presidential contests, based on recent events it seems that they are not actually defending Trump wile at the same time they told us they are “supporting him”.
It’s even more interesting to note greater support for the left hand (authoritarian) child descriptions given that in at least two of the pairs listed, the word on the right is not significantly different from the one on the left. A child/adult can very easily be both well-behaved and considerate, and they can be both well-mannered and curious as well. One would think a more realistic way of contrasting so-called conservative/authoritarian behavior vs. liberal/anything-goes behavior would be something along the lines of:
respectful or insolent
obedient or rebellious
well behaved or undisciplined
well mannered or crude
I would think a survey contrasting these more realistic behavioral opposites would garner even more ‘authoritarian’ votes.
You wasted a lot of words to demonstrate, with examples, the difference between well-designed and poorly-designed poll questions.
If my point isn’t clear, Trump would lose heavily were a poll question phrased as follows:
Who would you prefer as President: A conscientious person who strives to improve the lives of ordinary Americans? Or a pompous blowhard facing lawsuits for business fraud?
While your comments address the efficacy of the questions, you don’t address the fact that the questions obviously were efficacious: they created an indicator for likelihood of voting Trump.
And, from the poll results and the cliché phrases I’ve highlighted in your post, it seems predictable that … you are a Trump supporter! 
Oh, but I did. I said very clearly that by phrasing the questions as I did rather than in the way the pollsters did, an even larger number would have chosen ‘authoritarian’ (i.e., Trump). In other words, it’s obvious the questions were phrased in such a way as to weight the answers in Trump’s favor, but my point was that by phrasing them in a more realistic way they could have accomplished their goal more easily and in greater numbers.
No, I like Trump as a person, and I admire his intelligence and abilities as a businessman. This is as a result of having followed him and his career fairly closely since the eighties. But I don’t support him in his run for the presidency. He’s said some things that I’ve found troubling (although who can say if he really meant them), plus he’s about ten times worse than Hillary Clinton in that we don’t really have any idea what he’d really be like or what he would do once in office.
this is not going to surprise anyone on this board
Please explain how the numbers in post 845 are the work of one with the profit-making abilities of a “businessman”.
They look familiar to a banker who is in the frontier markets and is used to seeing the family founder who extracts value for the personal benefit in inflating costs and personal/family salaries, at the expense of his funders and the other partners- and the company. It is the rents extraction.
This Trump, he actually reminds me of the habits of the oligarchic family businesses in my world, the rent extracting habits of course, not very wealth building - and the thin skin and the familial arrogance. These people I am very familiar with (of course they complain at excessive collateral taken but we know that they lie as they breath).
Exactly. They aren’t the numbers of one interested in building a profitable business, but one using OPM to enrich himself.
Whatever Trump is, he is not a “businessman” in the sense that Gates, Jobs, Rockefeller, Watson, et al is… he’s a huckster.
On the contrary, it should be phrased like this, so that even less people garner “authoritian.”
-Clingy or independent
-Needy or self-reliant
-Self-centered or considerate
-Robotic or curious.
See it works both ways! With the right options, I can make the other side look like assholes too!
Look, there’s a reason the pollsters asked the question the way they did. It wasn’t meant to be about opposites, or to lead people to the “right” choice; it was meant to use two different traits, and seeing which a person valued more.
Cat got your tongue Donald? Haven’t heard but a few absolutely pathetic tweets since Thursday, and after a year of daily bile, the silence is deafening. He must be preparing a yuuuge rebuttal, with all the best words, and no teleprompter, of course.
Reality is setting in. Having to deal with an eviscerating Dem instead of the sad and tremulous GOPer competition, and the humiliated Media ready to turn on the wounded and floundering huckster, I want to see and hear him as he circles the bowl, taking the GOP with him.
The Emperor is naked.
Not interested or not capable of doing so by his nature. He has the habits of a rentier.
He is a rentier, I find him not different from the petty family oligarchic business leaders in the frontier markets who inherited assets in the decolonisation. Indeed very similar.
He is in this fashion I think even worse than a Berlusconi. Berlusconi at least showed some good capability in the management of his business empire (the idea that someone following Trump over many years would have respect for his business management capabilities is astonishing - but given the american football scandale and judgement shown - contre the self-marketing capacity) and actually demonstrated a patient intelligence in the affaires of Forza Italia… And Berlusconi was an absolute disaster for the Italians over the long-run…
How is it possible to like a racist piece of shit as a person?
I guess for those people who think it’s perfectly acceptable (and even shows good moral character) to call a judge born in Illinois a “Mexican” as a pejorative. To imply that he is biased against you because of his ethnic background.
Someone who finds that behavior acceptable and even laudable will find Trump a likable person.
Can the judge give any sort of sanction to Trump for saying negative things about him while Trump is involved in a case that the judge is judging? Or have I just been in Thailand too long? (Bad-mouthing a judge or his decisions in any way, shape or form is a prison offense in Thailand even for those who have nothing to do with the case in question.)
Trump says Muslim judges also might not be fair to him:
It feels like the media has decided (either implicitly or explicitly in some secret conference) to take the gloves off with regards to Donald – that the stakes are too high. The tone of the coverage seems to have shifted and they have no qualms about calling him on his bullshit. Example: CNN calling him a liar in the chiron underneath his picture.
I did see a mention that if Trump actually thinks there’s a bias, his lawyers could file a motion for recusal(?).
He truly is running to be president of a very specific clan in this country, to the exclusion of everyone else. His campaign is attempting to very much shrink this nation, where he really only serves and gives a shit about certain people, and divides everyone else out as “others.”
Hopefully, someone will ask him about The Jews soon.