About 4% of the UK population is Muslim, a chunk of that are children and apparently 44% support something that has never, ever happened in the UK
Meanwhile you live in a country where 12,000 people die a year from guns, your President is about to jeopardise healthcare for 20 million and you have the largest prison population in the entire world - but never mind all that, lets talk about something that has never happened within a very small minority of the population of another country.
FFS, shut the front door you silly twat - the only thing to fear here is your paranoid parochial ignorance.
I live in a particularly Democratic part of a generally though not super-Democratic state (NJ) so have no first hand survey to offer about Trump.
However as not Democratic or left leaning myself, but not a fan of Trump either, I feel on this particular issue I’m relatively objective and I see no reason there’d be a lot of disappointment, yet at least, among people who either actively supported Trump or held their nose and voted for him as not as bad as Clinton.
The immigration order thing was botched in execution, no reasonable debate about that IMO whatever you think of the underlying merit. However that’s one early botch, just in process terms, not likely to turn off the positive fans of a leader. And on the merits it outrages the same people who voted against Trump, certainly not the people who positively supported him. And if you ‘held your nose’ to vote for him, that’s just the kind of thing you were holding your nose about.
Likewise the Trump tweeted this/that stuff and leaks of conversations with foreign leaders (Trump is definitely being leaked on more, though not a surprise because the ‘career’ federal bureaucracy is generally Democratic leaning and culturally the kind of people particularly appalled at Trump) is mainly a carryover from the campaign. During that time each ‘oh look what he tweeted’ always fizzled out in terms of alienating his active supporters, maybe even strengthened his position, and again nose holders knew it when they voted for him. The theory seems to be it’s different now because he’s president but I doubt it. The same people who hated Trump already are the most bothered by that stuff.
Then the main new element is Trump nominating mainly conventional conservatives to important posts, of which the Gorsuch nomination is a huge one. That’s allaying some misgivings of conservatives about Trump, counteracting some of the greater unease among them ‘he’s actually still behaving this way in office’ wrt tweets, making up stuff off the cuff, squabbling with foreign leaders, etc.
I don’t think Trump’s standing has changed much yet. Lots of people hate him, lots of people love him, another big chunk was mainly not happy with bipartisan establishment rule as they saw it, and still awaiting more solid evidence that hybrid Trumpist populist-nationalist/conventional GOP rule is better or worse.
My suggestion to progressives/liberals is to stop demonizing Trump voters as racist, xenophobic, Nazis, etc. Keep doing it and you’ll lose the next election because you’ll pick a candidate who has no clue what a large number of voters actually want (e.g. Hillary ignoring white working class voters)
So I’m confused. If Trump is acting and saying things that are racist, xenophobic, and anti-American, sane people are just supposed to ignore it? Smile and shrug it all off? Because if we call evil out for what it is, ignorant fools will get mad at us and vote for someone even worse?
She didn’t ignore them. People just said she ignored them.
Anyway, I’m quite sure we’ve seen the last of candidate Hillary Clinton. I don’t know who’s up next, but I agree that person needs to find a way to get the deplorables to vote for him or her.
There is no hypocrisy. They merely want Hispanics to enter the country legally and for Muslim immigrants to be thoroughly vetted first. And they don’t view a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration as ‘banning’ them. Notice that even here at the Dope, banning is a permanent measure. No one is saying that Muslims should be permanently kept out of the country. These over the top and in their view deliberately dishonest claims about Trump and themselves is fuel to the fire and it makes them dig in even more in favor of Trump and the things he wants to do.
A lot of the posts are just re-runs of the election and its typical jib-jab, rather than analyzing what if anything is different so far now looking to next election. I agree with your analysis, not much reason for change by and large among positively pro-Trump populists, or apolitical anti-establishment voters of a generally non-left leaning nature, your 1 and 3. The change so far is among conservatives. Even once Trump got elected their view of him improved. Part of the reason they were skeptical of him was simply believing his behavior and rhetoric, on eg. immigration, would lose him the election. It didn’t, so not as much of a concern for now. Their policy skepticism is more about stuff like trade and govt intervention related to it (eg. ‘I’ll call them up and tell them where to build their factories’, that leads to corruption, eventually, inevitably, besides being unable to change macro forces in the economy). Or if Trump actually destabilizes international relations, still a concern but hasn’t really happened as opposed to already anti-Trump people howling about it. Then there’s the thing Trump has concretely come through on for conservatives: Gorsuch, and his cabinet picks are generally pretty conventional too.
So I think Trump would do even better with conservatives (or ‘conventional’ GOP who were skeptical of him) now in an election, turn out wise as well as maybe boosting his % of those who did vote though that ended up pretty high by the end.
The people he might do worse with are, as suggested by another poster, those who are Democratic leaning but didn’t show up, a big problem for Clinton. However, I think that’s pretty standard in such a case. Naturally if A was ‘supposed to’ win but didn’t and you’re sort of apathetic but more on A’s wavelength, it’s more likely you’d show up for A in a fantasy do over once the reality of B sinks in…but it’s a fantasy. I don’t think it means much for 2020. In terms of 2020, nothing much has happened yet.
You are free to moralize how people vote if you want. Assuming you disagree with Trump voters, you can view their votes for a different policy on trade and immigration as votes by evil racists to white wash America, or you can view them as votes to try and reverse the economic downturn in their cities with a policy you disagree with.
I think if you moralize the votes, which is what a lot of progressives are doing, you’ll miss the real concerns of these voters. It’ll also foster more divisiveness because you are less likely to compromise with “evil” voters.
Because she spoke to them often, talked about their concerns, and offered concrete proposals to make things better for them. What makes you think she did ignore them?
Trump doesn’t need to lose all his supporters, losing 10% is probably enough to shift future elections when he is running or in the white house.
Also from what I’ve seen, if there is any criticism of him from the right it is because of how thin skinned and emotionally unstable he appears to be. They may support the muslim ban, but some of them do not support a president who skips intelligence briefings but always has time to get into twitter wars with saturday night live.
Clinton did not visit Wisconsin at all, and aired more advertisements in Nebraska than in Michigan and Wisconsin combined. She not only lost because more white voters turned out for Trump, but also because less Democrats turned out for her. You can argue that Trump voters turned out because they were racists, but what about the Democrats who voted for Obama and stayed home for Clinton? Also racists?
Now keep in mind we are talking about around 80,000 votes in the rust belt that cost her the election. She did turn out a lot of white working class voters with her message, but the white working class votes she missed cost her dearly. It’s a mistake that a better politician would not make.
When Trump supporters put some effort into NOT sounding like racist Neanderthals who only know four words (“Make America Great Again”), maybe then I’ll view this as a matter of minor political differences rather than completely different mindsets. (Morals ain’t got a damn thing to do with it).
At any rate, I reserve the right to call anyone a racist Neanderthal if that’s how they indeed behave. I’m not going to refrain from calling the president the names that make the most sense just to spare the sensibilities of some conservative somewhere who doesn’t give a rat’s ass how I feel when I hear their rhetoric.
Not going to Wisconsin or Michigan may be bad campaigning, but I wouldn’t call it “ignoring white working class voters.” If white working class voters don’t vote because she didn’t hang out in their state enough, despite a world view and a platform that would benefit them, then I truly don’t understand people (a definite possibility). Clinton came to my state, but I couldn’t tell you if it was one time or 10 times. It didn’t register on my radar, and I actually don’t care. I do care that she’s not a complete buffoon, and would try to do more things that I want done that her opponent. We have national media outlets and the internet, so Wisconsin voters could hear the same things she was saying as New Jersey voters.
I don’t think everyone who didn’t vote for her is a racist, but *something’*s wrong with a white working class citizen who didn’t vote for her, and mistakenly thinks she wasn’t on their side.
I get that people *feel *she ignored them. It’s just not factually based.
Have you considered that maybe it’s Trump supporters who aren’t getting it? They don’t seem to realize that Trump and his cronies regard them as just another bunch of helpless losers. Right now Trump is attacking other people and his fans are cheering him on. But when it suits his purpose he’ll turn on those fans and crush them just like he has other people.
It’s less than four weeks into the Trump presidency. Come back in four years and then we’ll talk about whether his supporters got what they expected.
You blame the voters, I blame the politician. Especially when Obama got these voters to turn out for him. It’s not like it can’t be done. We just needed better politician to do it.
There is a visceral connection made when you can see and hear someone in the flesh and those people who are connected with and eager about a candidate will influence their less involved friends and peers on the fence. Putting out your policy positions and expecting people will get the message by media is the laziest most entitled kind of campaigning imaginable. Even Obama chided Clinton’s campaign after the election that they needed to be there for the fish fries.
When Trump came to the Eastern Shore of Maryland it was a HUGE event. Throngs showed up to see him. It was literally the biggest event I’ve seen in 30 years here on the shore. There was a palpable excitement and electricity in his supporters. If I was one of those the fence for DT vs HRC that wave of enthusiasm might have flipped me.
Obama was too cool to use his bully pulpit properly post the 2012 election to solidify the grassroots troops he won with into a cohesive force for the future and Clinton’s machine failed on multiple levels to get the real lay of the land. Showing up in person shows respect even if you are not their cup of tea. Trump figured out early who he had to show respect to and he respected the hell out of them with his presence.
