Ahh yes, the objective research shows that America does not want what Trump offers but the Trump voters are too stupid to vote for what they want. — Hanover

No, objective research shows that what Americans want, right or left, gets ignored.

It's also pretty clear that Trump voters are voting against their interests, yes. Democrats have done the same in years past-- but this is in a league of its own.

Why is Bernie doing well? He's young, hip, sharp, articulate, and he's captured the hearts and minds of the American public with his dazzling personality. It's either that or he gained popularity when he was the only one that Clinton couldn't exclude from the race with back room deals last election and everyone hates Trump so much that they're now willing to vote for a dying, babbling Socialist. — Hanover

Great analysis. Why does the Trump crowd so often sound like adolescents?

Also, try looking up what "reactionary" means. You've continually used it wrong.

Excellent point. And let's not even start on Eisenhower.

Under 1/2 of people are even eligible to vote.

Only around 2/3 of those actually voted.

Under 1/2 of those voted for Trump.

So under (1/2)*(2/3)*(1/2) = 1/6 people voted for Trump.

(Looking at the actual numbers it's closer to 1/8, but I'm rounding for simplicity). — Pfhorrest

This is very often forgotten, but shouldn't be.

Polling DOES suggest, though, that the country is fairly split on Trump. His approval rating has been around 42%, recently up to 49%. A lot of key swing states are still basically 50/50 on the next election. It boggles my mind, but that's what the numbers show.

I'm of the opinion that the truly dyed-in-the-wool Trump people are certainly in a minority, maybe 30-35% or so. But they're extremely vocal. They're the ones with the bumper stickers and Trump flags and MAGA hats.

Driving in Manchester NH this past Monday, outside the Trump rally, I got a decent look at the (large) crowd waiting in line outside. A lot of grey goatees, a lot of white hair, and almost all white folks. Now, we have a lot of hicks in NH, so I'm familiar with them -- and it looked very similar to a Loudon (Nascar) or Deerfield Fair crowd. Obviously this is stereotyping, but it's more true than not.

My point being this: these are the people who make their presence known -- they vote, they pick fights on the internet, they try to win by being the loudest and the most intimidating, etc. But they're still the minority, and becoming more so as demographics change. This is partly what energizes them. But they're the minority notwithstanding. I think we're seeing the last gasps of lot of old thinking. And Bernie, ironically, represents the new direction, whether now or ten years from now. The sad thing is, it may already be too late in terms of damage to the environment and to the courts. Especially if he (or the democrats generally) don't win in November.

It's also pretty clear that Trump voters are voting against their interests, yes.

This is quite a common trope. What are their interests, and how are they voting against them?

You look at states, for example, that went overwhelmingly for Trump. You look at the demographics and the problems they face. Then you look at Trump's policies and how they impact those states. The answer becomes clear.

Trump has screwed the working class in every way possible. It's a joke.

There's good research on this general phenomenon as well. Hochschild published an entire book in '16 about this phenomenon, actually. I'll link below.

https://www.amazon.com/Strangers-Their-Own-Land-Mourning/dp/1536684937

They see the government as more of a problem than a solution, and prefer it stay out of they private affairs rather than meddle in it. So it appears someone who cuts regulations, lessens government assistance, and limits government power is exactly in their best interests.

They see the government as more of a problem than a solution, and prefer it stay out of they private affairs rather than meddle in it. — NOS4A2

Things like abortion are kinda private. :grimace:

So it appears someone who cuts regulations, lessens government assistance, and limits government power is exactly in their best interests. — NOS4A2

Speaking of meddling, Trumps trade war hasn't panned out well for American farmers.

Parliamentary democracy is compromise.

Only fools think that people are united...and all think as they themselves do.

And what is your problem with consensus?

Trump's election was reactionary to the fact the political establishment hasn't listened to people for quite some time and was a lurch to the insane right. Bernie Sanders isn't reactionary at all but the most sensible of the democrats as it most closely aligns what a majority of Americans want. — Benkei

Uhhh...you're sure about that? USA isn't Europe.

Bernie is going to be made to be an American Corbyn. Here's a photo of young Bernie!


Yet the real mudslinging hasn't really started. Hence Trump can say this about Bernie Sanders:

If Bernie gets the ticket, I assume Trump's rhetoric will get more like he had for Hillary.

Trump and Bernie are both instantiations of the same historical trend: that there's something wrong with our system and people are starting to notice.

A surprising number of people on all points of the political spectrum are willing to roll the dice and blow up the system in the hopes that something better might arise. Of course such a hope is doomed to failure, as the revolutions of the twentieth century all made things horribly worse. The Russians and the the Chinese, to name two that turned out particularly badly. But there's an aspiration for something other than endless war, endless debt, endless corruption, and the government and media telling us little people what's good for us, even as they continue to do things that are bad for us.

Bernie comes in name of the people and so does Trump. Bernie comes in the name of radical change and so did Trump.

It's even noteworthy that Bernie's 2020 rise parallel's Trump's in 2016. First regarded as a joke, then he starts winning primaries and gaining in the national polls, and the party frantically starts to conspire against him. They throw one centrist after another at him -- Pete! Amy! -- to no avail. Bernie's win in Iowa brought out the same media talking points that were aimed at Trump four years ago. Can't win, what centrist will rise to beat him, he's a clown, he'll destroy the country, etc.

If you're a diehard partisan you may find it difficult to see current events through this lens. It's partisanship that makes it hard to see what's going on. If you want to know why Trump won, just watch what's happening with Bernie. People are sick to death of the neoliberal centrist consensus of the past forty years.

Bernie = Trump. Two sides of the same disaffected populist coin. When you get that, the news will start to make a lot more sense.

People are sick to death of the neoliberal centrist consensus of the past forty years, and no doubt there is some common appeal to both Bernie and Trump in that they are both "outsiders". But one is an "outsider" with decades of experience actively and consistently serving the public, working to push for the construction of something better for everyone; and the other is an "outsider" with no consistent political principles of any kind, who jumped straight into politics aiming for the highest office in the country for the sake of his own ego and self-promotion, completely unprepared to actually do the job, using divisive rhetoric and empty promises it's become evident he always intended to do the exact opposite of (like "drain the swamp", which is now boggier than ever).

People definitely do have an attitude of "give us something better or blow it all up". But Bernie is the "something better" option, and Trump is only the "blow it all up" option. Bernie-Trump voters were doing the equivalent of throwing a tantrum that they didn't get their way, and while they ought to have gotten their way, because they really do deserve better, throwing that tantrum is definitely not the way to go about getting it. But that's what people are wont to do when they don't get their way: start breaking shit until someone pays attention and placates them.

Speaking of meddling, Trumps trade war hasn't panned out well for American farmers.

The point of any trade policy isn’t just immediate results, but also long term ones as well. Given China’s recent pledge to purchase around 32 billion in agriculture products over two years, and also recent deals with Japan, Canada and Mexico which mostly Center around agriculture, things are looking up for farmers. I’d love to hear a Democrat’s policy towards agriculture but I’m not aware of any.

But Bernie is the "something better" option — Pfhorrest

Curious to know, are you "Anyone but Trump?" Or "Bernie or bust?" That is, when the Dems screw Bernie out of the nomination (and they're not even being subtle about it) will you vote for the whatever "centrist" hack they run? Or will you stay home?

What do you think will happen in November?

Free tuition and healthcare and student loan relief definitely sound better, but whether it is better or results in something better is a different story. In that respect, Bernie is the “something-that-sounds better” option. And history is replete with examples of those.

Yet the real mudslinging hasn't really started — ssu

Sanders has been in the national spotlight for years now and is on his second presidential run in which he's now the front-runner, and you really think there is more damaging mudslinging to come than what's been thrown at him in the past four years? I'm curious what you think the "real mudslinging" will be.

The point of any trade policy isn’t just immediate results, but also long term ones as well. — NOS4A2

The manufacturing industry is still in a recession, which hurts many of Trumps supporters. More broadly though, regulations and government assistance programs can stabilize an economy and lessen the effects of a downturn. That would be good for Trump supporters in the long term.

and also recent deals with Japan, Canada and Mexico which mostly Center around agriculture, things are looking up for farmers. I’d love to hear a Democrat’s policy towards agriculture but I’m not aware of any. — NOS4A2

If you're referring to USMCA, Democrats worked for over a year to improve the deal.

The manufacturing industry is still in a recession, which hurts many of Trumps supporters. More broadly though, regulations and government assistance programs can stabilize an economy and lessen the effects of a downturn. That would be good for Trump supporters in the long term.

Those trade deals also cover manufacturing. What would be good according to you doesn’t necessarily mesh with the interests of Trump supporters. Increasing regulations and government hand-outs aren’t normally on the menu.

If you're referring to USMCA, Democrats worked for over a year to improve the deal.

I guess they knew a good deal when they saw it. Of course it was Trump’s idea to renegotiate NAFTA.

I think you already asked this earlier in the thread and I replied, but in case not: I live in California so it's pretty much guaranteed that all our electoral votes are going to the Democrat no matter how I vote, so I use my vote as a way to signal to the Democrats how happy I am with their candidates. I normally vote third party, usually Green, despite participating in the Democratic primaries, to send the signal that I'd like them to be better. If my pick in the primaries ever gets the nomination, I'll vote for them to signal that I approve of their improvement. So if Bernie wins the nomination, I'll vote Democrat, and if not, probably Green. But that's only because I live in a safe state. If I lived in a swing state, I would vote for whoever got the Democratic nomination because that'd be the most effective use of my vote to influence things at least slightly in the direction I want them.

Yes, it's called anti-politic. Anything wrong, blame the government. That's fine for the people to believe, as the corporate sector amasses more and more wealth and lobby for (and get) whatever they want. It distracts the public's attention and anger to the "Big Government."

Deregulation, privatization, cutting corporate taxes, etc., -- yeah, all fine for big business. To say this serves the peoples' interests is a complete joke, with zero evidence.

The problem is the government takes our money and does with it what it sees fit. It has the monopoly on violence and we have to depend on it for our very lives. This isn’t true of “big business. Remember that those who own businesses and corporations are like you and I: private citizens and voters. We’re on the same team.

Do you remember the conclusions of Hochschild in her “Strangers in her own land”?

This isn’t true of “big business. Remember that those who own businesses and corporations are like you and I: private citizens and voters. We’re on the same team. — NOS4A2

Actually, corporations are considered people. But regardless, you're completely wrong: big business owns the politicians and the media, which is why people like you continue to defend them as they run the country into the ground.

It's important to distinguish here between what's in someone's best interest and what someone will choose. People often makes choices that are bad for them, by their own criteria; they end up suffering for those choices later, and wish they weren't suffering those effects, but didn't realize that the choices they made before would lead to those effects (and often still don't realize the effects they're suffering are the result of their choices).

Actually, isn't that kind of a conservative talking point? People with problems just made bad choices and are suffering the consequences? Why aren't bad political choices part of that same picture?

On a different subject, FiveThirtyEight is now showing that the top two predictions, tied for most likely outcome, are either Bernie or no clear winner, with Biden half as likely as either of those. But in the case of "no clear winner", I'm pretty sure the brokered outcome would end up with Biden, since he's this year's Chosen One. So in effect, Biden is back in the lead again. :(

Actually, corporations are considered people. But regardless, you're completely wrong: big business owns the politicians and the media, which is why people like you continue to defend them as they run the country into the ground.

Sorry, big big business and media don’t run the country. Government does. And if you think about it, if there is less government then there is less power for “big business” to own.

You're right, if we get rid of the government-enforced power to contract, or the government-enforced claim to property in the first place, then there's definitely less power for big business to own, and people will be free to buy or take things back for themselves instead of being stuck in perpetual debt for their entire lives.

I don’t understand those who decry “big business” and lobbying. The only reason people buy out politicians and bureaucrats is because politicians and bureaucrats can be bought. We should decry the politicians and bureaucrats for setting the conditions. If they didn’t accept bribes and certain lobbying that sort of business would become untenable within a few years.

To keep this on topic, that’s why I fear the big government types who are now vying for power.

:smirk: ... effin' Randroids.

I don't see how your comments are in response to mine. I was honestly running with your point and showing how it supports the claims of libertarian socialists that capitalism is propped up by the state.

Anyway, you're right that bribery wouldn't work if politicians wouldn't accept bribes. The problem is that the ones who do accept bribes tend to win, on account of all the extra campaign money they have, from those bribes. So the ones who wouldn't accept bribes don't win and end up not being our politicians. Who's responsible for that? The people offering the bribes.

I was just continuing my point. My apologies.

But you’re right. It is difficult for anyone of lower means to compete with the political machinery now in place. But lobbying the government is still important. Our best hope is that grassroots efforts can compete.

The manufacturing industry is still in a recession, which hurts many of Trumps supporters. More broadly though, regulations and government assistance programs can stabilize an economy and lessen the effects of a downturn. That would be good for Trump supporters in the long term.

Those trade deals also cover manufacturing. — NOS4A2

No trade deal can compensate for ever-increasing manufacturing efficiency (automation). That's a Trumpian fantasy that his followers apparently indulge themselves with.

What would be good according to you doesn’t necessarily mesh with the interests of Trump supporters. Increasing regulations and government hand-outs aren’t normally on the menu. — NOS4A2

I read the book Xtrix refers to and besides the potential long term economic costs already mentioned, in the book it discusses other costs of deregulation and 'smaller government' for the kind of people that support Trump. Industrial pollution in red states is not healthy. Diverting tax money away from the public sector and into the hands of industrial giants may sound like a good plan for economic growth, however, the data shows that many industries are attracted to areas with a healthy public sector.

If you're referring to USMCA, Democrats worked for over a year to improve the deal.

I guess they knew a good deal when they saw it. — NOS4A2

I don't know what they thought when they saw it but obviously they felt it needed work and they improved it.

You're right, if we get rid of the government-enforced power to contract, or the government-enforced claim to property in the first place, — Pfhorrest

hahaha. Somehow, I don't think that is what he meant. Well played :smile:

I personally cannot wait until the Bernie Trump national debates. Trump is like a juvenile on his feet. Bernie has self-respect and honor, and will neither stoop nor feed Trump's troll tendencies. Trump is no match for Bernie Sanders on a national debate stage, and that will be more than obvious to anyone watching.