DescentBB

...because hell if I know what motivates them other than being fearful low information and otherwise apathetic voters in most cases.

In fact, apathy in their midst is probably something that usually protects us from their idiocracy in elections (which comes from both sides of the political spectrum.)

Fear (ie: losing food stamps) is a great motivator that usually gets the low information voters on the democrat side to the booth and that might be the case this time for Trump.


https://pjmedia.com/election/2016/03/17 ... upporters/

Nightshade wrote:...because hell if I know what motivates them other than being fearful low information and otherwise apathetic voters in most cases.

In fact, apathy in their midst is probably something that usually protects us from their idiocracy in elections (which comes from both sides of the political spectrum.)

now, I'd disagree. Hell, we have Woody here as an example. Lord knows I've had my differences with the guy, but I don't think him to be apathetic. I also don't view him as 'low information', although I feel he proves himself to be a 'bad information' voter at times(maybe misinformation would be better). So, there is more at work than that simplistic answer. I think you have a group of voters that is really pissed off that their overall worldview has not prevailed, and is feeling a bit desperate about both the economy and the national demographics. They see their role in the economy as declining rapidly, and the demographics of modern America provide easy scapegoats when presented by a slick demagogue who understands mass media.

Fear (ie: losing food stamps) is a great motivator that usually gets the low information voters on the democrat side to the booth and that might be the case this time for Trump.

maybe too many easy answers like the above, for too many years, proved to be so wrong so often, contributed something to the angst. It may also explain why most of the GOP and the so-called Modern Conservative movement were asleep at the switch while this coalition formulated under their noses......

What I get from the few people I know who support Trump is the following:

1) a feeling that America is "failing" for various reasons that none of them agree on (including but not limited to Obamacare, gay marriage, unemployment, high taxes, a hamstrung military, Islamic refugees, illegal immigration, executive orders, blah blah blah...)

2) a feeling that the Republican establishment has not done enough to fight these things, ie, that the party that became known as "the party of NO" and "obstructionists" nonetheless compromised waaaaaay too much by allowing even a few things to pass, and

3) the feeling that the best or only solution is a "strong" president who will "fight" and basically force the country to reverse course on whichever piece of list (1) that person feels most strongly about. In essence, they want someone who will use executive orders and ram things through over the objections of an obstructionist opposition party, but in the opposite direction from Obama.

I wouldn't use the phrase "low information" voters. Bad information sometimes, but very often the information itself is correct. Where they go wrong is in thinking that a "strong man" is the answer, and especially in thinking that Donald Trump is the "strong man" they're looking for. They don't realize that if Trump were actually in power, the things he'd strong-arm into place would be half the things they're looking for, and half the exact opposite. And he'd set the precedent for the next guy to strong-arm policies into place, which is a very bad direction to go.

Nightshade wrote:Fear (ie: losing food stamps) is a great motivator that usually gets the low information voters on the democrat side to the booth and that might be the case this time for Trump.

As one of the 20% of Americans who has received SNAP benefits during hard times I can say that this statement of yours is absolutely ridiculous.

So you are a Democrat.

The fear of losing benefits and the hope of gaining more, even if you don’t personally use them yourself has motivated many people to the poles, speaking as someone that has lived in Democrat areas most of his life.

I can remember one campaign very well where the belief on the street was that governor Thornburgh was going to end all entitlements.

The truth…he did say they needed to cut spending.

The lie…that he was going to end all of the programs, and starve your babies.

So you can work out how that affects low/bad information voters for yourself.

Fear is an awesome motivator, the lie is that only one side uses it.

Lothar wrote:
3) the feeling that the best or only solution is a "strong" president who will "fight" and basically force the country to reverse course on whichever piece of list (1) that person feels most strongly about. In essence, they want someone who will use executive orders and ram things through over the objections of an obstructionist opposition party, but in the opposite direction from Obama.

I would disagree with your idea that Trump would use executive orders the way Obama has. Instead I can see Trump using the bully pulpit much more effectively than Obama. Secondly I can see Trump effectively using his negotiating skills to get things passed. You forget, Trump has shown he is a master at using the media. Some wonk has said he thought Trump got over 2 billion in free advertising during his run so far. In short I want someone in office who knows how to get things done instead of people who are lucky if they know how to sharpen a pencil.

Lothar wrote:I wouldn't use the phrase "low information" voters. Bad information sometimes, but very often the information itself is correct. Where they go wrong is in thinking that a "strong man" is the answer, and especially in thinking that Donald Trump is the "strong man" they're looking for. They don't realize that if Trump were actually in power, the things he'd strong-arm into place would be half the things they're looking for, and half the exact opposite. And he'd set the precedent for the next guy to strong-arm policies into place, which is a very bad direction to go.

You once predicted that you didn't think Trump would last more than a month or two when he started. Why should I or anyone else believe your prediction now? So we should have a crooked strong woman in charge. Or would you prefer another weak president like we have now.

authoritarian leaders are dangerous. It's that simple, Woody. The nation neither needs nor can be benefitted by a strongman. If you prefer that style, pack and move to Russia or someplace that supports that type of leadership.

Pack up and leave? Now where have I heard that tune before. Tell me slick, why is Trump really turning you into such a spineless bowl of quivering jello? Seems the closer Trump gets to being nominated the more fear mongering we hear from the left. Reminds me of the fear the left had for Reagan during his first run.

Oh and I guess these people are stupid also:

The largest U.S. Border Patrol union local is praising Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump for being the "only candidate" to support their tough mission, an almost endorsement that is the latest boost for the front runner's campaign.

They "get" Trump.

woodchip wrote:Oh and I guess these people are stupid also:

The largest U.S. Border Patrol union local is praising Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump for being the "only candidate" to support their tough mission, an almost endorsement that is the latest boost for the front runner's campaign.

They "get" Trump.

Haven't figured it out yet I see. Trump will NOT be enforcing immigration laws nor building a wall.

Be ready for disappointment.

heck, if Trump would just release the interview with the New York Times editorial board, they would know that he has not intention of building a wall, nor deporting people en-masse. In fact, I would expect immigration to boom under Trump, albeit legally sanctioned.

woodchip wrote:

The largest U.S. Border Patrol union local...

They "get" Trump.

As someone who has done contracting work for the border patrol over several years I can say that the Tuscon union is not representative of the Border Patrol as a whole.