Total Posts:105|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

YYW on Donald Trump

YYW
Posts: 36,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 2:10:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Weeks ago, before Trump mattered in the polls, before he was leading (by a considerable margin) every Republican in the field, and narrowing his gap among Democrats, I said that Donald Trump would win the nomination. All of you said I was insane.

Now, Trump is leading and even the New York Times can't ignore his increasing popularity. Many of you described Trump as a "bumbling idiot" or "fool" or whatever other variety of insult you could think of. What I knew, but what no one else apparently did, is (1) what Republicans want in a candidate, (2) what Republicans do not want in a candidate, and (3) why Trump has all the right things and none of the wrong things.

The traditional idea that people have, with respect to electing presidents, is that "policy" is the beginning and end of how and why people vote. The overwhelming majority of domestic political science in the area of electoral politics deal precisely with that issue, which is one of the contributing reasons why pundits talk policy (or, in their partisan hackery way, attempt to talk policy, while being hacks), and it's why everyone on DDO, in general, were completely incapable of understanding Trump's meteoric rise.

The overlap between political science and psychology coalesces in the decision calculus of voters, and what I knew -and have known since I worked in politics- is that voters don't even think about policy, as a general rule. Some do, but most vote out of party loyalty (although this is becoming increasingly less relevant), while the rest vote based on who they think will be the best "leader." To be a good leader is NOT to necessarily have the best policy positions; it's to be able to "hold your own" domestically and internationally...that is to say, it is to have a "presidential" personality.

There are some evolutionary psychologists who I've interacted with and whose stuff I've read that have said basically the same thing about trump, and there are others (who understand the psychology of presidential elections) that agree with me as well. However, you can only understand the significance of the evolutionary-psychological aspect of Trump's popularity in the context of the Obama administration.

Basically, you've got to get a really clear understanding of (1) what Republicans want and do not want in a president, (2) what their perception of the current administration is, (3) how their fears of America's imminent peril are going to compel them to rally behind the strongest, most "ballsy" guy in the room, who doesn't fvck around.

While I don't agree with this, Republicans see the Obama administration as the manifestation of American weakness, and lament the state of the world that has resulted from it. ISIS, for example, is something that is deeply troubling to Republicans for the very specific reason that they represent America's "losing our place in the world." Romney -incompetently, might I add- tried to tap into this sentiment, but it did not work. It was highly embarrassing for him, because no one believed that Romney (who came across as a "girly man") could actually deliver.

Trump is a tough, zero-bullsh1t kind of guy whose sheer personal audacity commands situations and circumstances. Republicans want "do-ers" not "thinkers." They want alpha-males, not girly-men, even under the best of circumstances. But under the perceived worse of circumstances (like, when ISIS roams free without the US reminding them of who is in charge), it's facts and circumstances like that which have paved the way for Trump's victory.

Phrases like "nobody will be tougher on ISIS than I will" are what win elections, and he says it with a level of resolve that makes people listen to what he says. Whether actually intervening is a good idea or not, in our long term strategic interests or not, etc. doesn't matter. What matters is that Republicans want to see the United States do to ISIS what the ancient Hebrews did to Jericho, and that's what Trump is talking about.

And I can tell you this, too. Trump made Megyn Kelly break down and have to take a ten-day vacation after that debacle. Kelly lost that battle, and it was a stupid battle to begin with. Women's issues have never mattered in the Republican party, and they are especially irrelevant to the base in a situation like where Obama is in office and ISIS exists, and Washington is doing nothing to stop it. So, when America saw Trump unapologetically own what Kelly accused him of, and then clamp down even harder, they loved it.

Things like being politically incorrect, being rude, etc. those are positive qualities because they show the extent to which Trump is a "strong-man" and not a "pussyfootbitch" like Jeb Bush, or a snake in the grass like Cruz. People say that his popularity is "all personality" and "no substance," but personality is substance, in electoral politics...and that is why he will win the nomination.
Tsar of DDO
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 2:32:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't disagree with the assessment. I do have faith that in the end, even the GOP has more thoughtful members than the radical base.

I take the Trump run more seriously than I did before, but stick by my predictions and bets (I win most of my political bets) and the nominee will not be Trump.
YYW
Posts: 36,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 2:35:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/23/2015 2:32:11 PM, TBR wrote:
I don't disagree with the assessment. I do have faith that in the end, even the GOP has more thoughtful members than the radical base.

I take the Trump run more seriously than I did before, but stick by my predictions and bets (I win most of my political bets) and the nominee will not be Trump.

Cheers

I win most of my political bets too...

We'll see what happens haha
Tsar of DDO
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 2:49:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The GOP knows the problem it has. You are dead right about his appeal, that appeal alone will not win the general. It also is mercurial. What is seen as the best thing today can shift suddenly when the rhetoric runs so hot.

Simply put, he is a bad candidate and the guys in the backroom know it.
YYW
Posts: 36,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 2:57:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/23/2015 2:49:03 PM, TBR wrote:
The GOP knows the problem it has. You are dead right about his appeal, that appeal alone will not win the general. It also is mercurial. What is seen as the best thing today can shift suddenly when the rhetoric runs so hot.

Simply put, he is a bad candidate and the guys in the backroom know it.

I disagree. Trump knows how to play ball with the interests that control the GOP, and they know that he will play ball. He's not like Rand Paul, the annoyingly obstreperous outsider who just wants to throw a wrench into the equation. He's also not like Marco Rubio, a young, naive guy who will never break out of his "token placeholder" status.

While I am willing to say that I think the general election is out of reach for him, the "guys in the back room" want someone like Trump to be the nominee, which, again, is yet another reason why I think he'll win.
Tsar of DDO
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 3:04:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I disagree. Trump knows how to play ball with the interests that control the GOP, and they know that he will play ball. He's not like Rand Paul, the annoyingly obstreperous outsider who just wants to throw a wrench into the equation. He's also not like Marco Rubio, a young, naive guy who will never break out of his "token placeholder" status.

While I am willing to say that I think the general election is out of reach for him, the "guys in the back room" want someone like Trump to be the nominee, which, again, is yet another reason why I think he'll win.

Trump is worrying the hell out of them, thats all. Since he refuses to take a independent party run off the table, they know he can run as a spoiler. They also know he is arrogant enough to do it. He has nothing to loose, and everything to gain. They have to be "nice" to him at this point, but are desperate to jettison him.

They have a increasing problem though. Rubio, I agree, is not ready for prime time. Rand you are dead on with. Walker is starting to have some real issues - the paper thin veneer is showing through. Christy is a disaster in sansabelt pants. Its Bush or bust, and they just can't get people to care about Bush.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 3:08:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/23/2015 2:35:12 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/23/2015 2:32:11 PM, TBR wrote:
I don't disagree with the assessment. I do have faith that in the end, even the GOP has more thoughtful members than the radical base.

I take the Trump run more seriously than I did before, but stick by my predictions and bets (I win most of my political bets) and the nominee will not be Trump.

Cheers

I win most of my political bets too...

We'll see what happens haha

I think it seems quite obvious: once the real televised debates start rolling out and questions with real substance start getting asked, Trump will have less and less room for his bullsh!t. It'll be direct questions on policy - on ideas - requiring detailed and planned answers that will expose just how unfit he would be for the job.
InsertAliasHere
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 3:28:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is a great analysis, as much as I would love to point to X and say, "This is why Trump won't be the nominee of my party." At this rate, his continued rise (I love your use of the term "meteoric, lol!) seems imminent, barring some massive screw-up that's significant enough to detract from his support amongst the base. If donating to Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, both of whom represent the face of the establishment Democratic Party, wasn't sufficient, I don't know what is--and the same goes for his remarks about Mr. McCain, someone (I at least thought) was well-respected amongst most Republicans.

One disagreement I've had about Trump--and I'd love to get your thoughts on this--is the extent to which he "isn't bought." Several of his supporters have made the case that his self-funding of his campaign represents an authenticity on par with that of, say, Bernie Sanders. My inclination is that, though he talks a reasonable game on campaign finance reform, he's taken precaution to shrug off the notion of actually doing anything (or prioritizing it at least) about this so-called "broken system" he helped devise. If I were a media pundit, that would be on the top of my agenda: something like, "Mr. Trump, you recently stated that the system is broken and that people, like yourself, can bankroll politicians at your whim and have them do your bidding. Yet you don't desire to do anything about this. How can we trust that you'll actually pass anything of meaning absent this reform?" I wouldn't be surprised at all if he played ball with the fellows from Exxon and friends. After all, he'd only be using the country's campaign finance laws, much like its bankruptcy laws, in his own favor!

For the more esoteric question of polls (and you probably know more about these than I), I saw an interesting graph in the Washington Post comparing his rise in the polls to that of Perry and Gingrich. The argument was that his frontrunner status wasn't unprecedented, but I distinctly recall both Perry's and Gingrich's (and Bachmann's, Cain's, etc.) being much shorter-lived and much less hyped. Any thoughts on whether his support will die down, or what the conditions sufficient for that might be?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 3:37:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
For the more esoteric question of polls (and you probably know more about these than I), I saw an interesting graph in the Washington Post comparing his rise in the polls to that of Perry and Gingrich. The argument was that his frontrunner status wasn't unprecedented, but I distinctly recall both Perry's and Gingrich's (and Bachmann's, Cain's, etc.) being much shorter-lived and much less hyped. Any thoughts on whether his support will die down, or what the conditions sufficient for that might be?

I think a look to Howard Dean is a good model. I loved the guy, and watch Iowa (one bad result) destroy his campaign. There is a long road ahead. For a guy like Trump, the opportunities to completely implode are just a matter of time.
InsertAliasHere
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 3:42:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/23/2015 3:37:08 PM, TBR wrote:
For the more esoteric question of polls (and you probably know more about these than I), I saw an interesting graph in the Washington Post comparing his rise in the polls to that of Perry and Gingrich. The argument was that his frontrunner status wasn't unprecedented, but I distinctly recall both Perry's and Gingrich's (and Bachmann's, Cain's, etc.) being much shorter-lived and much less hyped. Any thoughts on whether his support will die down, or what the conditions sufficient for that might be?

I think a look to Howard Dean is a good model. I loved the guy, and watch Iowa (one bad result) destroy his campaign. There is a long road ahead. For a guy like Trump, the opportunities to completely implode are just a matter of time.

I agree; the race is still young, and certainly he has the ability (more than probably anyone, because he's Trump) to screw up. The problem is that I don't know what would constitute a screw-up for him amongst his base of supporters. Howard Dean's "chant" didn't seem like a big deal to me at all, and I even saw the unedited tape. I think, had he made a menstruation joke, or insulted a POW, or called Mexican immigrants "rapists," etc., he would've been on an apology tour (pun intended, lol!), and that would've destroyed his political career indefinitely. But when Trump says something like that, he surges.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 4:33:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Good post. I thought Donald Trump was too much of a loud mouthed idiot to even be considered for President. Now I fear losing 5$ in a bet on who is going to be nominated for the Republican Party...
Nolite Timere
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 4:34:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The question is, would the Republican Party rather win and have a loud mouthed idiot in office, or have a better candidate but be more likely to lose?
Nolite Timere
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 4:55:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/23/2015 4:34:49 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
The question is, would the Republican Party rather win and have a loud mouthed idiot in office, or have a better candidate but be more likely to lose?

I think you have that reversed. Trump does worse vs any matchup. If the GOP nominates Trump, the race gets very easy for the Democrats.
InsertAliasHere
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 5:01:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/23/2015 4:55:51 PM, TBR wrote:
At 8/23/2015 4:34:49 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
The question is, would the Republican Party rather win and have a loud mouthed idiot in office, or have a better candidate but be more likely to lose?

I think you have that reversed. Trump does worse vs any matchup. If the GOP nominates Trump, the race gets very easy for the Democrats.

It gets easier relative to the other candidates, though Trump is still gaining ground in general-election polls. He went from down 13 points against Clinton to down 5 recently. I think national polls are probably a lackluster proxy for the electoral college--e.g., Mitt/Obama were almost tied in national polls, though Obama swept most of the swing states--but a lot of people, even independents, seem to like him.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 5:06:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago

It gets easier relative to the other candidates, though Trump is still gaining ground in general-election polls. He went from down 13 points against Clinton to down 5 recently. I think national polls are probably a lackluster proxy for the electoral college--e.g., Mitt/Obama were almost tied in national polls, though Obama swept most of the swing states--but a lot of people, even independents, seem to like him.

That decline represents a problem with Clinton, not an improvement for Trump.
YYW
Posts: 36,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 5:06:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/23/2015 3:08:47 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 8/23/2015 2:35:12 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/23/2015 2:32:11 PM, TBR wrote:
I don't disagree with the assessment. I do have faith that in the end, even the GOP has more thoughtful members than the radical base.

I take the Trump run more seriously than I did before, but stick by my predictions and bets (I win most of my political bets) and the nominee will not be Trump.

Cheers

I win most of my political bets too...

We'll see what happens haha

I think it seems quite obvious: once the real televised debates start rolling out and questions with real substance start getting asked, Trump will have less and less room for his bullsh!t. It'll be direct questions on policy - on ideas - requiring detailed and planned answers that will expose just how unfit he would be for the job.

The problem is that you couldn't be more wrong. There is no such thing as a "detailed plan" that's announced in US presidential elections. People want simplicity, and they punish politicians who make them think too much by not voting for them.

The person who can give the simplest answer, that is most direct, with the most force, is always the winner.

Like, look back over every single presidential election since the 1960s. Think about how those who ran in primaries (especially Republican primaries) presented their ideas, and notice the trend: to the extent that news cycles grow more prolific, and sound-bite coverage more damning, politicians give very simple answers of necessity. That's exactly what Trump's been doing, and it's exactly what he's going to continue to do.
Tsar of DDO
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,846
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 5:14:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/23/2015 2:10:45 PM, YYW wrote:
Weeks ago, before Trump mattered in the polls, before he was leading (by a considerable margin) every Republican in the field, and narrowing his gap among Democrats, I said that Donald Trump would win the nomination. All of you said I was insane.

Now, Trump is leading and even the New York Times can't ignore his increasing popularity. Many of you described Trump as a "bumbling idiot" or "fool" or whatever other variety of insult you could think of. What I knew, but what no one else apparently did, is (1) what Republicans want in a candidate, (2) what Republicans do not want in a candidate, and (3) why Trump has all the right things and none of the wrong things.

The traditional idea that people have, with respect to electing presidents, is that "policy" is the beginning and end of how and why people vote. The overwhelming majority of domestic political science in the area of electoral politics deal precisely with that issue, which is one of the contributing reasons why pundits talk policy (or, in their partisan hackery way, attempt to talk policy, while being hacks), and it's why everyone on DDO, in general, were completely incapable of understanding Trump's meteoric rise.

The overlap between political science and psychology coalesces in the decision calculus of voters, and what I knew -and have known since I worked in politics- is that voters don't even think about policy, as a general rule. Some do, but most vote out of party loyalty (although this is becoming increasingly less relevant), while the rest vote based on who they think will be the best "leader." To be a good leader is NOT to necessarily have the best policy positions; it's to be able to "hold your own" domestically and internationally...that is to say, it is to have a "presidential" personality.

There are some evolutionary psychologists who I've interacted with and whose stuff I've read that have said basically the same thing about trump, and there are others (who understand the psychology of presidential elections) that agree with me as well. However, you can only understand the significance of the evolutionary-psychological aspect of Trump's popularity in the context of the Obama administration.

Basically, you've got to get a really clear understanding of (1) what Republicans want and do not want in a president, (2) what their perception of the current administration is, (3) how their fears of America's imminent peril are going to compel them to rally behind the strongest, most "ballsy" guy in the room, who doesn't fvck around.

While I don't agree with this, Republicans see the Obama administration as the manifestation of American weakness, and lament the state of the world that has resulted from it. ISIS, for example, is something that is deeply troubling to Republicans for the very specific reason that they represent America's "losing our place in the world." Romney -incompetently, might I add- tried to tap into this sentiment, but it did not work. It was highly embarrassing for him, because no one believed that Romney (who came across as a "girly man") could actually deliver.

Trump is a tough, zero-bullsh1t kind of guy whose sheer personal audacity commands situations and circumstances. Republicans want "do-ers" not "thinkers." They want alpha-males, not girly-men, even under the best of circumstances. But under the perceived worse of circumstances (like, when ISIS roams free without the US reminding them of who is in charge), it's facts and circumstances like that which have paved the way for Trump's victory.

Phrases like "nobody will be tougher on ISIS than I will" are what win elections, and he says it with a level of resolve that makes people listen to what he says. Whether actually intervening is a good idea or not, in our long term strategic interests or not, etc. doesn't matter. What matters is that Republicans want to see the United States do to ISIS what the ancient Hebrews did to Jericho, and that's what Trump is talking about.

And I can tell you this, too. Trump made Megyn Kelly break down and have to take a ten-day vacation after that debacle. Kelly lost that battle, and it was a stupid battle to begin with. Women's issues have never mattered in the Republican party, and they are especially irrelevant to the base in a situation like where Obama is in office and ISIS exists, and Washington is doing nothing to stop it. So, when America saw Trump unapologetically own what Kelly accused him of, and then clamp down even harder, they loved it.

Things like being politically incorrect, being rude, etc. those are positive qualities because they show the extent to which Trump is a "strong-man" and not a "pussyfootbitch" like Jeb Bush, or a snake in the grass like Cruz. People say that his popularity is "all personality" and "no substance," but personality is substance, in electoral politics...and that is why he will win the nomination.

Trump is our Lord and Savior.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 5:25:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/23/2015 3:28:07 PM, InsertAliasHere wrote:
This is a great analysis, as much as I would love to point to X and say, "This is why Trump won't be the nominee of my party." At this rate, his continued rise (I love your use of the term "meteoric, lol!) seems imminent, barring some massive screw-up that's significant enough to detract from his support amongst the base. If donating to Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, both of whom represent the face of the establishment Democratic Party, wasn't sufficient, I don't know what is--and the same goes for his remarks about Mr. McCain, someone (I at least thought) was well-respected amongst most Republicans.

Thank you for the kind words. The thing is that Trump's "screw ups" (read: the Megyn Kelly incident) aren't screw ups. They are quintessentially what is driving his campaign. The more he goes off-code (meaning that he doesn't act like a politician, concerned with such trivialities as "political correctness" and the like) the more people trust him, and the more people like him, because he's a politician who is not acting like a politician.

When people say that they want a "business man" for president (the irony is that most of the people who say that have no concept of what corporate America is like), what they mean is "I don't want a politician" because politicians, like lawyers, are slimy and nefarious operators. Business people (even though they are just as corrupt as politicians) are regarded in our society as "respectable" -and especially those business men who worked very hard and built their own empires (which Trump largely did).

The other thing is that the "kind" of money trump has is what distinguishes him from a guy like Mitt Romney, whose work at Bain Capital was revolutionary, but at the same time perceived -by people who don't know what he actually did- as carpet-bagging slime-ball-ery. The cultural understanding is that Mitt preyed on failing manufactories, whereas Trump built a real estate empire (and in so doing created tens of thousands of jobs).

When Trump talks about construction of, for example, Trump Tower in Chicago, and he says that it was the first super skyscraper built after 9/11 (when everyone said that big buildings wouldn't be built anymore) people are going to love it because it's inspiring. People are also going to regard his audacious personality as "street cred" for being able to keep (as Bush used to say) "Poot Poot" (Vladimir Putin) and Kim Jong Un, as well as the Iranians in line; while visiting nothing less than the full might of the American military (read: the wrath of God) down upon ISIS. That's what people want; they want to feel like they're a part of a country that is, without question or historical precedent, the unrivaled world leader. They don't want to have a president who draws "red lines" regarding chemical weapons in Syria and then does nothing. (Obama had very good reasons for not intervening in Syria, but that's irrelevant for purposes of mass perception and electoral politics.)

One disagreement I've had about Trump--and I'd love to get your thoughts on this--is the extent to which he "isn't bought."

There are a lot of politicians who do the things that they do for money from corporate interests. People like Rand Paul, Scott Walker, or Marco Rubio. There are other politicians who are so rich they give zero fvcks (Bloomberg and Kerry). Trump falls into that later category. He's worth over eight billion dollars, and while Vladimir Putin may be worth 40, there is something to be said for politics remaining a "rich man's game."

Many British political theorists (including the father of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke) contended that by keeping the political class the monied class was a way of inoculating them from corruption; which is to say, it is a way to keep those without from being bought off because they already had more than enough money for whatever they could possibly want. Now, that's different than the "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" narrative, which is still important, but all it means is that while Rubio might score points with some people when he talks about paying off his student loans, people are going to trust Trump more because having lots of money that you made yourself, in America, is "proof" of success, which is proof of competence.

I will say this too... Trump is a good and positive force in the GOP, because he can outspend the Koch Brothers, and rally more money than they ever could, and ultimately I think that is why the establishment will settle on Trump to keep the Koch-tea baggers out of the oval office.

For the more esoteric question of polls (and you probably know more about these than I), I saw an interesting graph in the Washington Post comparing his rise in the polls to that of Perry and Gingrich. The argument was that his frontrunner status wasn't unprecedented, but I distinctly recall both Perry's and Gingrich's (and Bachmann's, Cain's, etc.) being much shorter-lived and much less hyped. Any thoughts on whether his support will die down, or what the conditions sufficient for that might be?

I've met Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich, and while there may be a statistical similarity between "how" their numbers look, there is nothing that Trump has in common with either of them. He is infinitely smarter than both, he is not a career politician (unlike both of them), he is not concerned with petty stupid political games (unlike Newt Gingrich, who is probably the most devastating force that has ever inflicted itself on the Republican party), and he is not petty or stupid (unlike Rick Perry, from whose ego I could jump to his IQ).
Tsar of DDO
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 5:26:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/23/2015 2:35:12 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/23/2015 2:32:11 PM, TBR wrote:
I don't disagree with the assessment. I do have faith that in the end, even the GOP has more thoughtful members than the radical base.

I take the Trump run more seriously than I did before, but stick by my predictions and bets (I win most of my political bets) and the nominee will not be Trump.

Cheers

I win most of my political bets too...

This is why YYW is awesome.

We'll see what happens haha
YYW
Posts: 36,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 5:32:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/23/2015 4:34:49 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
The question is, would the Republican Party rather win and have a loud mouthed idiot in office, or have a better candidate but be more likely to lose?

I'm not so sure that that's how it works. Ted Cruz is a loud-mouthed idiot, but Trump just talks like a normal person, albeit he says what he says with much more resoluteness than normal people do.
Tsar of DDO
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 5:38:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/23/2015 4:55:51 PM, TBR wrote:
At 8/23/2015 4:34:49 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
The question is, would the Republican Party rather win and have a loud mouthed idiot in office, or have a better candidate but be more likely to lose?

I think you have that reversed. Trump does worse vs any matchup. If the GOP nominates Trump, the race gets very easy for the Democrats.

I wasn't aware. I figured that if Trump has the most support than he would naturally be the best candidate.
Nolite Timere
YYW
Posts: 36,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 5:42:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
One thing I want to add as well is that Trump is probably the most image-conscious politician I have ever seen, and I think being a celebrity really prepared him to run for president in that way. He is acutely aware of how he comes across, but he doesn't censor himself.

Like, this is the thing: when he called Rosie O'Donnel a "fat pig" or a "dog" or whatever, men chuckle and say "damn I thought the same thing" and women agree with that too while thinking "oh he's just a man being a man."

The reason why Megyn Kelly's attacking Trump, was, thus, fundamentally stupid is because when Trump goes after people (which isn't really all that common) he does it with a "reason." If he called, for example, Barbra Bush a fat pig he would never work again in business or politics, but most Republicans regard Rosie O'Donnel as both a slob and a fat pig, and they don't consider her to be a part of "women" in the writ large/general sense, so much as a truculent bull-dyke with a penchant for obnoxiousness. "Women" aren't like that, or at least "ladies" aren't like that, which is why what Trump said was totally acceptable to Republicans.

What's so hilarious about the egregious incompetence of such columnists in the New York times as Maureen Dowd (who is by no means the worst, but she is probably the most important among those who are so afflicted by incompetence) is that they expect Republicans to regard any attack on any woman as an attack on all women. Said more directly, liberal media pundits (or pundits who hold positions in the NYT op-ed department) expect Republicans to think like feminists... which is just hilariously stupid.

This is why the media will be both befuddled and frustrated that they can't understand Trump's popularity/appeal. The reason they can't understand it is because they can't think like Republicans. Even Ross Douthat (who is really not a Republican at all, he's just a silly looking token-conservative so that the NYT editorial staff can pretend like they're bi-partisan or whatever) doesn't understand it because he, like everyone else in that elite class of media persons are too far removed from "the people" to understand how they think.
Tsar of DDO
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 5:46:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I would be willing to give 2:1 odds that Trump doesn't win the presidency, and 3:1 that he doesn't get the Republican nomination.
YYW
Posts: 36,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 5:47:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/23/2015 5:46:12 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
I would be willing to give 2:1 odds that Trump doesn't win the presidency, and 3:1 that he doesn't get the Republican nomination.

Yeah, well, I've got bets out right now at 13:1, 10:1 and 5:1 so your offer isn't appealing... but good luck just the same.
Tsar of DDO
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 5:48:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/23/2015 4:33:50 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Good post. I thought Donald Trump was too much of a loud mouthed idiot to even be considered for President. Now I fear losing 5$ in a bet on who is going to be nominated for the Republican Party...

He won't win, lol. I bet he is trying to give media attention to the GOP and make them all seem reasonable compared to him, and as Clinton's poll numbers have been falling at the same time, we see the gap has shrunk in her leads. In fact, both Rubio and Bush were +2 against her in a recent poll, and Quinnepac has Rubio +7 in Pennsylvania, +2 in Ohio, and +13 in FL.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 5:50:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/23/2015 5:47:43 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/23/2015 5:46:12 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
I would be willing to give 2:1 odds that Trump doesn't win the presidency, and 3:1 that he doesn't get the Republican nomination.

Yeah, well, I've got bets out right now at 13:1, 10:1 and 5:1 so your offer isn't appealing... but good luck just the same.

Nice! :D
YYW
Posts: 36,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 5:52:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/23/2015 5:50:59 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/23/2015 5:47:43 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/23/2015 5:46:12 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
I would be willing to give 2:1 odds that Trump doesn't win the presidency, and 3:1 that he doesn't get the Republican nomination.

Yeah, well, I've got bets out right now at 13:1, 10:1 and 5:1 so your offer isn't appealing... but good luck just the same.

Nice! :D

Yeah, when I heard him talk I just kind of knew....

The thing is that the more of Trump that I've seen, the more favorable a view of him I have as a candidate. He's probably the least slimy of all the Republicans in the field right now.
Tsar of DDO
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 5:53:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/23/2015 5:52:43 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/23/2015 5:50:59 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/23/2015 5:47:43 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/23/2015 5:46:12 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
I would be willing to give 2:1 odds that Trump doesn't win the presidency, and 3:1 that he doesn't get the Republican nomination.

Yeah, well, I've got bets out right now at 13:1, 10:1 and 5:1 so your offer isn't appealing... but good luck just the same.

Nice! :D

Yeah, when I heard him talk I just kind of knew....

The thing is that the more of Trump that I've seen, the more favorable a view of him I have as a candidate. He's probably the least slimy of all the Republicans in the field right now.

Your analysis is more clinical than intuitive though. (kinda knew...)
YYW
Posts: 36,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 5:56:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/23/2015 5:53:54 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/23/2015 5:52:43 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/23/2015 5:50:59 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/23/2015 5:47:43 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/23/2015 5:46:12 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
I would be willing to give 2:1 odds that Trump doesn't win the presidency, and 3:1 that he doesn't get the Republican nomination.

Yeah, well, I've got bets out right now at 13:1, 10:1 and 5:1 so your offer isn't appealing... but good luck just the same.

Nice! :D

Yeah, when I heard him talk I just kind of knew....

The thing is that the more of Trump that I've seen, the more favorable a view of him I have as a candidate. He's probably the least slimy of all the Republicans in the field right now.

Your analysis is more clinical than intuitive though. (kinda knew...)

Yes, but that's how I "just knew." Trump is the first candidate in the field who was on code.

I can go through and tell you why each and every other candidate will not get the nomination against him.

Again, people think I'm insane...and I guess that's reasonable because I think about politics like a psychologist thinks about his patients haha
Tsar of DDO