I have been trying to figure out why we have the current conditions in the Presidential race. I have a new theory-I wonder if anyone else has thought of this and/or if anyone has any comments on the theory.
The US electorate likes Trump because he is perceived as weak and they dislike Clinton because she is perceived as strong and capable.
Evidence: I have never read or talked to a Trump supporter who thinks Trump makes sense in all his positions or isn’t a dangerous (in the words of one well-educated intelligent Trump supporter I know: a high-risk vote) man. Everything I have read is that they like him because a) his ideas will shake up the establishment and b) any crazy ideas will be edited away by “the people around him” or congress or the courts or ‘someone’ will prevent really bad things from happening. In other words, Trump is too weak to avoid being hemmed in and controlled by his handlers. It is easy to vote for Trump because whatever bad things might happen will be prevented by the people behind the throne.
Clinton OTOH comes across as exceptionally well-prepared and quite capable of getting her own way. So people dislike her because she will do the things she says-and many people dislike and/or fear at least a few things she says.
This country likes divided government-now the electorate is extending that like to the Presidency.
Not sure it is actually true. But I think that is an argument you could make (and it gets irritating around here when so many folks can’t tell that difference).
Yes, we designed it that way so as to prevent some idiot getting elected President and then unilaterally implementing a lot of crazy shit.
Interestingly, I’ve heard the same things you have. Many of my right-leaning friends treat Clinton as a dangerous diabolical mastermind. They feel comfortable voting for Trump because they feel his eccentricities will be mitigated by various checks and balances or that he won’t be ‘hands on’ and will instead delegate a lot of responsibility.
I just realized a flaw in your argument. At least the simply stated version.
Hillary Strong (aka not weak). Trump Weak (aka not strong).
You are using two different definitions/implications of the term depending on who they apply to.
Hillary is strong because she will get her not so crazy shit passed. Trump is weak because he won’t be able to do crazy shit.
That is true enough as stated (sorta). Buttt…Hillary can’t do crazy shit either. And Trump might or might not be able to get his not so crazy shit passed.
In general, I think your analysis has a basis. But it is not as simple as Hillary can do what she wants and Trump can’t, therefore Hillary strong and Trump weak.
Thanks!
I am not arguing that Hillary is actually strong and Trump is actually weak by any definition of weak and strong one wants. I don’t think either is in fact true. The future success of either candidate can’t be estimated at this point in time.
What I am arguing is that this perception explains the support a person with Trump’s views have, and the antipathy toward a mainstream “conventional” candidate like Clinton. I am considering only public perceptions and how they translate into support.