HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Trump is not a "phen...

Mon Aug 17, 2015, 08:59 AM

Trump is not a "phenomenon" - his candidacy is just media hype to sell news/entertainment product

Trump's a loud mouth without much substance or experience, and the know-nothing wing of the Republican party swooning for such a candidate is nothing new or revolutionary.

Trump's support is about 22% of Republicans (on average); in 2012, the loud mouth without much substance or experience was Herman Cain who jumped up to 27%:



In 2008, the loud mouth without much substance or experience was Sarah Palin. McCain-Palin actually won 46% of all votes, and after the election, Palin was better liked by the Republican voters than McCain with 71% believing that McCain made the right choice by picking Palin as his running mate, while only 65% of Republicans thought the party's choice of McCain was the right nominee for president. Palin had a 91% approval rating among Republicans (WAY, WAY, WAY higher than Trump).

Leading into the next election cycle (in 2012), Palin remained extremely popular with Republicans, well ahead of eventual nominee Romney:



In 2000, the loud mouth without much substance or experience was Steve Forbes who -- for a while -- looked like he was going to build on his 1996 campaign when he actually won the Arizona and Delaware primaries.

In 1996, in addition to Forbes, the loud mouth without much substance or experience was Pat Buchanan who won the Louisiana, Missouri, and New Hampshire primaries.

In 1992, the loud mouth without much substance or experience was Ross Perot (remember him?).

In 1988, the loud mouth without much substance or experience was Pat Robertson who won the Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington primaries/caucuses.

The Trump candidacy is interesting, and it tells us much about the current size and shape of the know-nothing wing of the Republican party, and it speaks volumes about the lackluster campaigns of Bush, Walker, and Rubio (the hand picked cluster of establishment candidates from whom the nominee will actually be chosen).

But, please, let's not get carried away with the Trump hype.

Those of us who have survived the Cain administration and the Palin presidency and the Forbes-Buchanan ticket can tell you this - sit back and enjoy watching how Trump makes the Republican insiders fret while he forces the Koch monsters to burn more and more money. You won't get to enjoy this forever.

15 replies, 1062 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Mon Aug 17, 2015, 09:04 AM

1. Precisely

Trump sells advertising just like Hillary's email sells advertising. Sanders does not sell advertising. That's all it's about. It's why I haven't watched network news in years. It's all about increasing shareholder wealth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Mon Aug 17, 2015, 09:13 AM

2. Loud mouth Concern Troll for the loud-mouthed troll hunting media, we all know it.

And it is not just about profit, it is for the pure pleasure of of the power rush you get from so easily manipulating so many American minds.

The manipulative and exploitive "churches" pushing the fake "Gospel of Prosperity" have nothing on the handful of white men pushing American mass media's Gospel of Manipulation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Mon Aug 17, 2015, 09:16 AM

3. we misunderestimate this one at our peril

first, don't forget that ross pert took nearly 19% of the popular vote even after some major stumbles and more or less giving up late in the game.

the key is not to focus on trump himself, but on the nation's yearning for change. that is key to predicting presidential election outcomes.

1988, 1996, 2000 were all pretty good times for the country, financially at least. the nation was fine with the status quo, and the party controlling the white house won the popular vote in each of those elections (gore won the popular vote even if he was robbed of the electoral vote).

but in none of those elections was a true "outsider" likely to win. 1992 was different and ross perot had a big chance but blew it, yet quite possibly did influence the outcome.

2016 is not so simple. obama has done a great job imho, and the economy is certainly much better than the one he got when he took office. but the public is not so grateful as there still isn't a sense that our economic troubles are behind us.

essentially all the candidates are pretty "establishment" except for sanders on the left and trump on the right. i think sanders is doing well because of the same phenomenon, we're not overly thrilled with the status quo and there's some appetite for something different.

right now, the republican primary is a "trump or someone else" question. sure, his inexperience will quite possibly trip him up, but then again, maybe not. perot was genuinely inexperienced not just in politics but also in mass communications. trump may be inexperienced politically, but he is a danger when it comes to mass communications.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #3)

Mon Aug 17, 2015, 09:18 AM

4. Trump is a front runner only until the mass media gets sick of the clown....not dangerous except

to the intelligence.

Same as when Bachmann, Caine, and Santorum and Grinch were once "leading" in 2013 months before any votes were cast...just more fluff to avoid talk of real solutions to real issues....as it has always been.

I think Trump even led the media driven polling once in 2013!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #4)

Mon Aug 17, 2015, 11:34 AM

5. The real question is whether Trump flames out like Cain or fades away like Forbes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #5)

Mon Aug 17, 2015, 11:37 AM

6. What ends well is all that matters. Only the timing and method is unpredictable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #5)

Mon Aug 17, 2015, 03:55 PM

10. Trump will never fade

He will see it coming and do something spectacular! Whatever it entails he will be doing it in a lip pursing huff with his hair waving like a yellow dove's wing in the breeze.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Mon Aug 17, 2015, 11:45 AM

7. No, he IS a phenomenon in an odd way.

 

The phenomenon is this: he's the first candidate to be able to say anything and open up sacred cows. The media can't shut him out, something that has never been accomplished before (social media, I often mention how big media literally doesn't know how to handle it yet). Normally they could either freeze his assets, freeze his business, or freeze his appearances. Now they can do, literally, none of it. And the Twitter Suppression Machine that normally shuts down anything else that slips through isn't big enough to do it either because again...there's nothing they can shame him out of or silence him in fear of. It's both disgusting, because of Trump as a person, and exhilarating because media control is all-pervasive and seeing its control shattered would be beautiful.

No Trump and Bernie suddenly has the full weight of the media on him. He'd have been blacked out so fast it'd have made your head spin because he can be frozen rather easily -- he's reliant on a whole slew of donors and constituents even if he's not beholden to them.

I don't expect Trump to last through the end of this year let alone next, but it's good for Bernie as long as he does (imo).

Edit: I should point out I don't think Bernie will remain very freezable; by the time Trump drops out, the lack of Bernie being removed by that point should make it too far along for him to be treated like Ron Paul. In theory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shandris (Reply #7)

Mon Aug 17, 2015, 03:02 PM

8. You say Trump is the first candidate to be able to say anything, but Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan

said crazy shit throughout their campaigns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #8)

Mon Aug 17, 2015, 03:08 PM

9. The people backing Trump aren't all 50+

 

So no, they don't remember a candidate able to actually say things they believe (crazy though it be, obv).

I'm not sticking up for the guy, I'm trying to explain why people see him the way they do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shandris (Reply #9)

Mon Aug 17, 2015, 04:36 PM

11. The people backing Trump are mostly not voters. Link:

A new study has found that many of Trump's supporters won't be able to help him when it matters the most.

...

While Trump continues to pound his chest, a new study by the analytics company Macromeasures might rain on his parade, as Forbes reported on August 14.

Of Trump's 3.2 million Twitter followers, only 39.4 percent are eligible to vote. Macromeasures eliminated followers under the age of 18, and those residing outside of the United States. Trump's eligible voter rank is the worst of all Republicans with a presence on Twitter. While only 39.4 percent of Trump's followers could actually vote for him, six other Republicans have over 90 percent of eligible voters as their followers. On top of the list is Carly Fiorina, with 95.7 percent of her followers eligible to vote, with Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee, and Marco Rubio following behind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #11)

Mon Aug 17, 2015, 04:49 PM

12. ...ok...?

 

I guess that's nice. I wouldn't suspect it means a single thing, since it wasn't 'uneligible voters' who put him up 25%, but whatever.

I can't believe people are actually thinking stories about TWITTER FOLLOWERS are worth reading. Anyone who's spent more than about 4 seconds perusing any Twitter feed ever knows you can buy an army of followers for cheap. It's not even uncommon.

Edit: In case anyone is missing it, I reiterate that this idiot is going to drop out of the race before the end of the year (imo, obviously).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shandris (Reply #12)

Mon Aug 17, 2015, 05:35 PM

15. The twitter interest correlates to the MSM obsession but does NOT correlate to voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Mon Aug 17, 2015, 04:51 PM

13. he's a creation of the Conservative Entertainment Complex.

 

Will his ignorant dumbass nihilist voters turn out in Iowa and New Hampshire?

No.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #13)

Mon Aug 17, 2015, 05:18 PM

14. Bingo. He could conceivably do OK in Iowa or New Hampshire (it's too early to tell) but only because

20%-25% support can carry the day in a sharply divided field. Once the race narrows down to real contenders, 20%-25% is a poor showing.

Most likely, Trump flames out. Possibly he just lasts until the cap on his appeal shrinks his constituency as a portion of Republican primary voters and he just fades away (like Santorum in 2012). Either way, I don't think there were gonna get a HUUUUGE CLAAAASY makeover at the White House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread