Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Polls and the reluctant Trump voter

Polls and the reluctant Trump voter

The perceived closeness of the race may affect the vote

For a long time I’ve conceptualized Trump voters as falling into two camps: the enthusiastic and the reluctant. No doubt there are some who fall in between, too, but I think that mainly there are those two categories.

The first group consists of people who supported Trump in the primaries, either as first or second choice. They believe he would be a good president, or at least that he was the very best or one of the very best of the lot of GOP candidates who originally threw their hats into the ring.

The second group is composed of people who support Trump now only because he’s running against a person they consider worse, Hillary Clinton. They don’t always agree on why he would be better than she, but they agree that he probably would. Some of them even detest him otherwise and think that he would make a bad president, but are still willing to vote for him as the alternative to Hillary.

Members of the first group sometimes appeal to members of the second group, urging them to make sure they vote for Trump. Their arguments can vary widely. Sometimes the argument is that Trump will be a good president and will do a number of good things for the country. Sometimes it’s that Trump will do one or two good things, usually involving SCOTUS justice choices and/or immigration policy. And sometimes it’s that even though we don’t know what Trump might do, we know that Hillary would be awful and there’s at least a chance that Trump would be better.

That latter type of reasoning has probably become the most common argument we see these days, at least as reflected in blog comments and blog posts, in newspaper and magazine columns and TV commentary, plus social media. As Trump’s poll numbers rise and fall and then rise and fall and rise, and state polls become increasingly common, it occurs to me that the latter argument rests almost entirely on the race being at least somewhat close.

For example, let’s say a reluctant Trump voter lives in California. If Clinton is ahead by 12% in the polls there (I chose that number because it was the figure in a recent poll, but the point is that no one really disputes that she’s way ahead there), why would a reluctant Trump supporter be motivated to compromise what he/she might see as his/her principles and integrity by voting for a man he/she detests, if that man is seen as having absolutely no chance of winning in that state?

It behooves Trump to stay close in swing states, because a whole lot of his supporters everywhere are in the category of “reluctant supporters.” Often very reluctant supporters. They will only hold their noses and vote for him in that voting booth if they see a good chance of defeating her. Because elections are decided by winning state electoral votes rather than winning the national popular vote, voting decisions will be made by most voters who know much of anything about elections (and I would guess that the category “reluctant Trump voter” is probably made up of people who are aware of the way the Electoral College works) by taking into account this system.

That’s one way in which polls matter. There are margins of error in polls, to be sure, and there are just plain errors, too. But overall, polls that show Trump far behind in a state are probably going to further discourage the Trump vote in that state. And polls that show him to be close will almost certainly encourage even a reluctant Trump vote.

[Neo-neocon is a writer with degrees in law and family therapy, who blogs at neo-neocon.]

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Count me as a reluctant Trump voter.

But also, an enthusiastic anyone but “Monica Lewinsky’s ex-boyfriends wife, a brain damaged alcoholic enabler of her sexual predator husband” voter.

    gospace in reply to gospace. | September 3, 2016 at 9:16 pm

    One other thing about my vote this year, that reluctant Trump voters ought take into account.

    The polls are wrong. I don’t know how wrong, but wrong. Because of this interesting statistic from Rasmussen polling. 10% of Democrat likely voters, 17% of Republican likely voters, and 25% of no party affiliation likely voters are refusing to say who they are going to vote for in November.

    That’s a lot of refusal. Who are they leaning to? I’ll bet they’re not evenly split- but I don’t know. And neither do the polling companies, nor does anyone else. Though I live in central NY, not downstate, I see more then 100 Trump yard signs and bumper stickers for every Clinton one. I recently drove from NY to Colorado to WV back to NY. Bumper stickers all along the drive were the same count. There are voters for her out there. But they are not displaying it.

      Bluebird in reply to gospace. | September 4, 2016 at 1:40 pm

      My guess is that Hillary voters are not displaying Hillary yard signs and bumper stickers because they don’t want to take heat from their Dem friends and associates for “not voting their conscience” for Stein or Johnson.

        Bumper stickers and yard signs are out as electioneering merchandise for the lefties. Since 2008 they buy t-shirts, tote bags, etc. there were very few bumper stickers and signs for Obama in 08 in SF Bay Area, of all places, but plenty of t-shirts.

    MattMusson in reply to gospace. | September 4, 2016 at 11:12 am

    I think we may be ignoring the reluctant Hillary voter too. My sweetheart who is a woman of a certain age wants desperately to vote for Hillary. And, whe alibies it by concentrating on anti-trump commercials.

    I tell her that people died because Hillary abandoned them as Secretary of State, that people probably died when secrets were hacked off her email server and that the Clinton Foundation has received hundreds of millions in payoffs and bribes. And, she responds – “I can’t vote for Trump because he made fun of that reporter.”

      I also can’t vote for Trump because he made fun of that reporter. It shows callousness, lack of judgement, impulsiveness, pathological narcissism and sadism. It’s not a one off event for Trump, it’s a pattern.
      Yes, you are right, people died because of Hillary. Many, many more people will die if Trump is elected.

I’m definitely voting against Hillary, but whether it’s going to be Johnson or Trump, I haven’t decided yet.

    oldav8r in reply to Amy in FL. | September 3, 2016 at 8:16 pm

    Barring something untoward, either Hillary or Trump will be sworn in on 1/20/17. So I submit that a vote for anyone other than Trump Is a vote for Hillary. And vice versa of course.

    “I’m definitely voting against Hillary”

    In Florida, there is only one way to “definitely” vote against shrillary.

    Logic? A vote for Johnson withholds a vote from shrillary. A vote for Trump withholds two votes for shrillary. A vote for Trump makes you twice as powerful, Amy. 🙂

    MattMusson in reply to Amy in FL. | September 4, 2016 at 11:19 am

    You can always split your ticket. Vote Trump and then vote Libertarian for all statewide offices. That way you can still register your anger with the GOP.

There is probably a similar corollary with Hillary supporters and reluctant Hillary supporters (aka Bernie Sanders supporters). But the question is do they feel motivated enough to vote no on Trump (yes for Hillary) or would they be willing to sit back and see Crooked Hillary lose?

Which is why Trump has to play a bit for the middle.

WRT states that will assuredly go for the demented old crook, I beg to differ regarding motivations. I live in one of those deep blue states totally dominated by a single region infested by far too many leftists. I have absolutely no doubt the state will go for Hillary and I am supported in this opinion by a number of recent polls.

As a reluctant Trump supporter, if my state were close enough that my vote might actually matter then I would have to think hard about giving my vote to Trump. But since the state is guaranteed to go Hillary (heck, Hillary could be in the morgue and this state would vote for her) I will certainly vote Trump. Why? It is a FU to both the establishment Republicans who created the conditions for Trump and to the Democrat candidate.

I both live in Calif & am against Mrs Clinton. If Trump were close enough for my vote to count in this very Blue state, he would already have won the election in the rest of the Country.

smalltownoklahoman | September 3, 2016 at 8:32 pm

Definitely in the reluctant camp, really I’m more antiHillary at this point. Really, Trump could suddenly drop dead tomorrow, causing the Repubs to scramble to appoint someone else for the election and that someone else would still get my vote because I won’t vote for Hillary!

I hope you’ll indulge me in a little story. 40+ years ago, 3 friends and I played the game of Risk a lot. The typical game went the same way – everyone would establish some territory and then just sit there building up more and more armies and do nothing more. And one of us (always the same guy) would then shout “enough of this” and kick the bottom of the table and send all the pieces flying.

We need someone to kick our political table so we can, in some sense, start over. Maybe it will be for the better, maybe not. But things are only going to get worse and worse over time if we keep doing the same old same old. And no one but Trump is going to kick that table. I’m willing to take the chance, so Trump has my vote even if it is with some trepidation.

After Reagan, the only presidential candidate that I could enthusiastically vote for was W Bush. While he had some great qualities, in the end he turned out to be a Bush. What I do not get is how “conservatives” can be more reluctant to vote for Trump then they were to vote for Saruman McCain and Mittens Romney?

As for polls, well everyday I see a headline on Drudge that the race is tight, for about a month now. I do know two things about the polls.

The first thing is that the emails show that MSM were more then willing to manipulate the polls in the Dem primary to help Hillary.

The second thing is that the polls in The Republican primary varied a lot. Some were spot on others were way off. I see a lot of people who whisper to me that they are enthusiastic Trump supporters, but deny it it in public. They don’t want their spouses or SOs to know they are supporting Trump. Some Trump people have been vandalized to
extents that exceed what has happened before. How many people have been attacked at Trump rallies? We really don’t have any idea what the state of the election is.

The only thing we can say with any positivity is that enthusiasm is heavily on Trumps side. Whether that matters at the polls.

The big question is this. How would you feel if you don’t vote and Hillary wins by one state and wins your state by 5000 votes?

I take neo-neocon’s analysis, which could be applied to any candidate in any election, to be proof that the #NeverTrump faction is beginning to realize what a dangerous game they are playing.

Their game is dangerous not only to the nation if Hillary wins, but also to themselves. Their future influence within the party is on the line. Win or lose they will be seen as having been disloyal to the party. They will either be seen as a cause of Trump’s defeat or as having contributed nothing to his victory. Win or lose, the pressure on the party will be to move to the center, and they refuse to go there. In either case it will be very hard for them to claim a seat at the policy setting table.
And they need to be at that table if they want to influence the direction of the party. If they want to get back in the game, they better act quickly.

    “NeverTrump faction is beginning to realize what a dangerous game they are playing.”
    I think you are wisdom “signaling”. We are just petulant children who have no idea what we are doing, right? Well, thank you for looking out for us.

      So, I have a question for you as a never trumper.

      For years now the establishment Republicans have been nominating one of their number. And telling the Trumpian faction (for want of a better term) that they have to support the establishment Republican, as the duly selected nominee of the Republican party. Party unity and all that. And, by and large, the Trumpian faction has done so.

      This year, for once, someone other than an establishment Republican is nominated. And now the establishment Republican never Trumpers are opposing Trump. Party unity be damned.

      Assume Trump loses. Assume that in four years the establishment Republicans nominate the next candidate from their ranks.

      Having giving a big “f**k y**!” to the duly nominated candidate of the Republican party, and to party unity, why do they think a single person from the Trumpian faction would feel the slightest moral obligation to support the establishment candidate?

        By your logic we should be voting for Hillary because she’s not an establishment Republican.
        If I voted for the GOP nominees, it’s because they were at least paying lip service to conservatism and Trump does not. He is not a conservative, doesn’t share my worldview. (He also acts like a horny teenager whose greatest goal is to elicit reaction: see his latest antic of wearing tallit to a black church).
        To me all your talk about the holly party loyalty sounds like Soviet propaganda. I am a free person, not bound by any obligations to your collective. If establishment Reps were bad enough, Trump is a slap on the face. I actually changed my registration after voting for Cruz in the primary. Not interested in this Republican Party; my loyalty is to the conservative ideas, not GOP.

          Your loyalty is the shrillary. You declared you were voting for the Clinton crime syndicate months ago.

          You have no conservative principles. You are a con artist, nothing more.

      Just going from the comments on here, I have no qualms about saying you are petulant children who don’t know what you are doing…to this country.

Let me add one more thought for those who are going to sit our because of their principles. The fact is that your principles are not going to win in 2016. That’s reality. There is nothing you can do to make them win. You can make them irrelevant again in 2020 by sitting out this election and reducing your influence in the next one. That also is reality.

    Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | September 3, 2016 at 11:21 pm

    No, that’s your typical irrational bullshit bullying.

    It makes no sense whatsoever to subvert principles here, because they’ll find expression in the future. The only way to express principles is to live them, and that includes voting them.

    Never, ever vote for a Collectivist thug. If that’s what the primary system of the “party” hands Americans, Americans only proper recourse is to repudiate that result.

    Good and hard.

      “and that includes voting them”

      What virtue you have Rags. I suppose voting for Bush, McCain, Dole, and Romney were all virtuous.

      Wisewerds in reply to Ragspierre. | September 4, 2016 at 12:57 am

      Rags, see my question above.

        Ragspierre in reply to Wisewerds. | September 4, 2016 at 4:13 am

        Mr. Establishment is not a conservative. He’s not even a Republican.

        He’s a Collectivist crony capitatlist all his life entire.

        Wrong question, wrong premises.

      healthguyfsu in reply to Ragspierre. | September 4, 2016 at 3:37 am

      Time for your rabies booster, Rags.

      VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | September 4, 2016 at 4:31 am

      rags,
      I feel sorry for you. A man whose committment to his principles is so weak that it dissolves if he votes for any candidate who doesn’t meet them.

      You say “It makes no sense whatsoever to subvert principles here, because they’ll find expression in the future.” Yet, you advocate doing precisely that, letting Hillary win through your inaction (and continue Obamas destruction of your principles) in the hope that your principles will triumph tomorrow. And you accuse me of being illogical? Of course, it does make sense if the thing that matters is not the principles but rags commitment to them. If it’s all about rags and not the principles, then what you said makes sense. rags being able to say he was faithful is more important than the damage done.

      Now, let’s look at bullying. You say: “Never, ever vote for a Collectivist thug. If that’s what the primary system of the “party” hands Americans, Americans only proper recourse is to repudiate that result.”
      Several points.
      1- anyone who doesn’t agree with you is not an American – bullying.
      2- you demand a veto over the results of a primary election if you don’t agree with it – bullying
      3- you demand that everyone else give up their principles and adopt yours while you remain unflinching – a total lack of respect for the intelligence of others or their rights – bullying.
      4- you demand everyone else join you in your fantasy world of denial, where a Hillary presidency is an acceptable result, so long as rags remains pure. – bullying.

      I could go on, but why bother. My job here is not to convert you, but to expose you. Mission accomplished.

        Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | September 4, 2016 at 4:57 am

        Several points.
        1- anyone who doesn’t agree with you is not an American – bullying.

        I’ve never attacked the conflicted voter who opts for a T-rump vote. You’re a liar.

        2- you demand a veto over the results of a primary election if you don’t agree with it – bullying

        No. I personally won’t conform to a primary process that gave me TWO stinking, lying, pathological Collectivist thugs. I owe no genuflecting to any “party”. The OPPOSITE of “bullying”, you slavish T-rump sucker.

        3- you demand that everyone else give up their principles and adopt yours while you remain unflinching – a total lack of respect for the intelligence of others or their rights – bullying.

        No. You are a liar, but a very good ThoughtPolice stooge. I don’t demand anything from anyone. I call on my fellows to use their minds to deal with reality. Unlike you, you lying you-know-what, I’ve NEVER called someone who disagrees with me on this matter a “traitor”. Coward.

        4- you demand everyone else join you in your fantasy world of denial, where a Hillary presidency is an acceptable result, so long as rags remains pure. – bullying.

        No, that’s just another of your lies. I don’t find any outcome in this election “acceptable”. And that’s reality, not a fantasy. It damn sure isn’t ‘bullying’.

        Now you’ve exposed your cowardly self for the lying bully you are, and have been playing here for months.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 4, 2016 at 5:14 am

          3- you demand that everyone else give up their principles and adopt yours while you remain unflinching – a total lack of respect for the intelligence of others or their rights – bullying.
          ———————————————-

          Howard Roark is pissing on you in your bed…

          Heh…!!!

          Just what was wrong with the Republican Primary process…

          other than the fact your guy lost where the voters actually voted?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 4, 2016 at 11:37 am

          In mid-August, a bare majority of Republicans and Republican leaners (53%) said there was a candidate running for president who would make a good president. This is down seven percentage points from the pre-convention period in mid-July and is the lowest Republican reading so far in 2016.

          By contrast, 63% of Democrats and Democratic leaners said there is such a candidate in the presidential field, down just slightly from where it stood in July, although also the lowest percentage for Democrats this year.
          http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/195311/record-low-gop-candidate-good-president.aspx

          The cult of T-rump is much, much smaller than you fantasize.

          There were several…many…candidates who would have been MUCH stronger. T-rump shouldered them out like the cuckoo bird he is.

          So we’re saddled with The Man From WrestleMania. Yey, team.

          VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | September 5, 2016 at 6:14 am

          rags says:
          “I’ve never attacked the conflicted voter who opts for a T-rump vote. You’re a liar.”

          Too funny for words, so I won’t waste any.

          After saying “If that’s what the primary system of the “party” hands Americans, Americans only proper recourse is to repudiate that result.”
          You say:
          “I’ve NEVER called someone who disagrees with me on this matter a “traitor”.” NO, you just called them unAmerican. Again, too funny for words.

          You say “No. I personally won’t conform to a primary process that gave me TWO stinking, lying, pathological Collectivist thugs.” Rags didn’t get his way so he’s going home. Clearly, you have no respect for the majority of voters who rejected you, your candidate and your principles. They are not allowed to have a choice unless it conforms to yours. The 12 million voters who disagreed with you are unworthy. Their choice needs to be repudiated (your words). And if they’re real Americans they’ll go along with you. That’s rags view. Clearly, your fantasy believes that if you sit out nothing bad will happen. Clearly your fantasy equates Clinton and Trump when the reality is that they are vastly different. Clearly you believe that your need to remain pure is more important than the needs of the nation. Clearly you believe that one man one vote and majority rule are not principles you agree with and will defend. Clearly, you are in denial.

          Do you think I quoted you because I think your post was brilliant? Hardly. My points were from your post and your words condemned you. Your reply proves I was right.

          And that brings us back to my first post. After people like you tell the party to kiss your asses. After you refuse to back the candidate. After all that, when the election is over and the dust settles, the party will begin setting strategy for 2020. You’ll come asking for a seat at the table to help set the agenda and choose the candidates. Hopefully there won’t be any children around when they reply to your request.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 5, 2016 at 9:49 am

          Ha, ha, and ha…!!!

          Liar and bully, you just can’t help it. You can’t allow anyone to leave your herd. I’m delighted that it drives you insane. I’m also delighted you show the “quality” and nature of T-rump cultists.

          And, of course, you have it exactly backwards. People like me never demand, ask, or expect “a seat at the table”.

          What we do expect and demand…as consumers, if you will…is a offering we can spend our vote for.

          In the case of T-rump, Collectivist fraud and liar, no sale.

          VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | September 5, 2016 at 10:26 am

          rags said:
          “And, of course, you have it exactly backwards. People like me never demand, ask, or expect “a seat at the table”.

          What we do expect and demand…as consumers, if you will…is a offering we can spend our vote for. ”

          I could not have expressed your character flaws and political naivete better if I tried.
          Thank you and have a happy holiday!

        “NeverTrump faction is beginning to realize what a dangerous game they are playing.”
        It is, in fact, a sad time to be conservative.

Holy cow, some people sure can manage to get tangled up in their own underwear.

It’s not a grand philosophical gesture; it’s just a goddam vote. A single move in a long-running game. One would have to be a serious weirdo to dream about throwing the game just because he can’t absolutely swoon over one of the moves. That’s not a principle; that’s just self-centered stupidity.

Consider a chess game. The best move at some particular point in some particular game might be a gambit involving, say, a queen sacrifice. What would you call a player who says, oh no, I’d sacrifice a pawn, but never a queen? Would you call him “principled”?

No, you’d call him “loser”.

But cheer up, this election won’t be decided by votes, it will be decided by fraud. The D’rats will use every trick they have to get a criminal into the White House (again).

This seems the entire point of inflating the polls in HRC’s favour…to depress the Trump vote.

Trump can’t be packing out his rallies and be trailing massively in the pills while HRC struggles to fill a spa pool with anyone other than paid supporters or children forced to attend her get together.

Mailman

Trump sat in meetings with GOP leadership in June and July and made the case that he would change the electoral map and turn traditionally blue states like NY, NJ, IL, etc red by bringing in lots of new votes and broadening the GOPs appeal.

That was the reason he was comfortable spending the summer attacking Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and never reached out to people like Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio. He figured he didn’t need the base since he’d pick up so many votes in the middle with his populist message and celebrity status.

Unfortunately being a celebrity also means its impossible to reintroduce yourself to the voters – they already know you. Since October, Trump has never been able to get his favorable rating above 35 while his unfavorables are in the high 50s/ low 60s, and I don’t see that changing between now and election day.

If Trump can’t pick up votes in the middle like he planned, then the GOP needs its base, which means they have to bully or beg votes from Republicans who really dislike Trump. I don’t envy them, but they surely brought it upon themselves.

    Valerie in reply to tyates. | September 4, 2016 at 8:55 am

    The people who think of themselves as the GOP base have been sitting out on principal in droves for the last two Presidential cycles. They do not learn.

      tyates in reply to Valerie. | September 4, 2016 at 3:51 pm

      But whose fault is that? If the party can’t find a candidate and put together a platform that motivates their base then they’re not doing their job and deserve to lose. The candidate also has to continue reaching out to its base after the nomination – that was the whole point of the much maligned Sarah Palin VP pick.

      And Democrats also have this issue every election – this year its the Bernie supporters and its definitely costing them support. In 2000 it was Ralph Nader and it probably cost them a close election. You might not recall how many celebrity endorsements Nader had. Generally the Republicans have been more cohesive, but this year is the exception.

ScottTheEngineer | September 4, 2016 at 10:52 am

I work in a UAW auto plant in Ohio. I’ve seen exactly 2 postings encouraging a Hillary Clinton vote on the union message boards something about Hillary support for TPP will bring Union jobs. These people aren’t stupid. They see through that lie.
The union office still has Obama/Biden signs in it. There are no T-shirts, Bumper stickers.. Nothing. I don’t personally know anyone that’s planning to vote for Hillary.
I was a Cruz guy but I’m definitely voting for the Trump administration.
4-4 is all you need to know. Its really all that matters. That one Supreme court pick will destroy the bill of rights.

Note that this is not a tread about #neverTrump. It poses entirely different issues.

Note that the attacks here originate from the bully-bois of the T-rump sucking cult, who apparently simply cannot tolerate the idea that some view the Great God Cheeto with less than reverential awe. Hell, some of us actually see him in a negative light!

Note that no “I will not vote for a Collectivist” position is allowed, respected, or to be dealt with by any other means than extremist ThoughtPolicing.

Note also that none of the bullying and ThoughtPolicing done in the last many months have moved those of us who see Der Donald as who he is. Indeed, for all I can see, it’s just confirmed us in our conclusions regarding him and his cultists.

    They know Trump will lose, and they need a scapegoat. And note, if NeverTrump wasn’t numerous enough to stop Trump in the primaries, we are not going to prevent him from winning in the general election. Their candidate simply doesn’t appeal to the American voters.

    “Note that no “I will not vote for a Collectivist” position is allowed, respected, or to be dealt with by any other means than extremist ThoughtPolicing.”

    What a laugh you are. Barely a thread is untouched by your “ThoughtPolicing”.

    Your “Collectivist” charge against Trump is unfounded. There is nothing in Trumps past that would show him as being for collective ownership of the means of production. His history and words display precisely the opposite.

    You try to equivocate him with shrillary for your own delusional reasons. Your slavish devotion to the cause of the left is apparent, but you delude yourself into believing you are a principled conservative.

    Perhaps you are a “conservative”, but your principles are sorely lacking.

      Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | September 4, 2016 at 2:20 pm

      Your stupid knows no bounds.

      Der Donald is NO different than Bernie Sanders in his trade policy, borrowing for “stimulus”, and who’s right it is to control the economy. These are COllectivist policies, not market economics policy.

      Additionally, on a larger scale, Der Donald is just a BIG GOVERNMENT guy. He’s so stated.

      But you are a liar. And you WILL lie. Like the sun coming up in the east, because you are a T-rump sucking cultist.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 4, 2016 at 4:13 pm

        Der Donald is NO different than Bernie Sanders in his trade policy, borrowing for “stimulus”, and who’s right it is to control the economy. These are COllectivist policies, not market economics policy.

        Additionally, on a larger scale, Der Donald is just a BIG GOVERNMENT guy. He’s so stated.

        But you are a liar. And you WILL lie. Like the sun coming up in the east, because you are a T-rump sucking cultist.

        Oh, and does Der Drumpmeister support a Federal minimum wage?

        Yeah, he does. Lying cultist.

      Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | September 4, 2016 at 2:33 pm

      Look up the term “Collectivist”.

      You’ll LEARN that it includes socialist, communist, and fascist COLLECTIVISM.

      Next, look up one of Dr. Sowell’s excellent short pieces on fascist economics, which I’ve often dwelt upon. Der Donald is a fan of fascist economics.

      You poor T-rump sucking cultist and liar.

        You poor deranged fool. You seem to think you are the only one that knows the definition of “collectivist”. Any group, including the commies, socialists, and dictators as well as any group that controls the means of production are collectivists.

        Trade policy per trump is not collectivist. Here, let me educate you: From Mr Webster:


        1 : a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control

        2 : emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity

        Considering that you voted for the people in the past that were no different than Trump with respect to trade, did you violate your “principles”? Of course you did, had you any.

        Did McCain, Dole, Bush, and Romney believe in “Big Government”? Of course they did. You voted for them all. You are a hypocrite, or a propagandist of the worst kind. Or both.

        I do wish you could live under the government you are advocating for, one led by the Clinton crime family. You deserve that.

        Your very use of the word “lie” is always telling. When confronted by the truth, that you have supported every republican big government statist running for election, you run and hide behind the name calling of “liar”, something you practice in every thread.

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | September 4, 2016 at 4:16 pm

          I apply the observation that you and others are liars aptly.

          It that’s on every thread, then so be it.

        david7134 in reply to Ragspierre. | September 4, 2016 at 4:20 pm

        Trump seems to support Ragan’s approach to the economy and that worked, unless you are a liberal. I have not seen a thing about him to suggest fascism. Of course, you may be one of the many who is deluded by the MSM.

          Ragspierre in reply to david7134. | September 4, 2016 at 4:27 pm

          Differentiate for us the positions of Bernie and Der Donald vis Ford Motor Company, Carrier, etc.

          Tell us how Der Donald and Bernie are different regarding borrowing for “stimulus”.

          Does Der Donald support government control of the economy? Yes or no.

          Does Der Donald support a Federal increase in the minimum wage? Yes or no.

Rags, for someone concerned about civility and bullying, you sure have alot of stinkbombs in your own rhetoric.

Stop making this about you. Its a simple choice:

You vote for the one who is not above the law.

    Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | September 4, 2016 at 11:42 am

    When attacked by cultists, I WILL fight back. And I am a knife-fighter.

    You don’t have to like…or even read…what I write. Tough shit.

    I won’t submit to the ThoughtPolicing you commonly find here from the T-rump sucking Collectivists. You can. Always up to the individual.

      “When attacked by cultists, I WILL fight back. And I am a – ”

      Do you even know you’re talking to? You might at well lecture Rommel on the concept of Blitzkrieg.

      In every election over the last 30 years, I can find people “thought policing” how the rest of us should vote. If I wanted to use that as an excuse to burn the village to the ground, it would have been easy. But those elections were not about me or my feelz, they were about the direction of this Republic.

      In an age of Vanity, you should take extra precaution to ward yourself against dipping into it. This is not about you, or them.

      ** You vote for the candidate who is not above the law **

      Anything else is just crap.

        Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | September 4, 2016 at 12:04 pm

        ** You vote for the candidate who is not above the law **

        Then, like me, you vote for neither stinking, lying, pathological, Collectivist thug.

        Because BOTH of them have held themselves above the law. And if you don’t recognize that, you are delusional.

Well I for one have come around and now grudgingly admire those who hold their principles above the need to protect the interests of the nation and their community. They were not doubt the ones who went into the breach at Lexington and Concord and were steadfast at Valley Forge. Grandma will be their new “American Cincinnatus”. The supple spines they’ve cultivated will serve them well. https://img.ifcdn.com/images/e55e6f79e9da7a35328775bc9049e8edbd69f95837b714d25c5846975495c2d4_1.jpg

    Ragspierre in reply to jack burns. | September 4, 2016 at 12:19 pm

    Golly, I bet the guys who stood in the breach and carried over at Valley Forge were there on principles. Not the “interests of the nation”, which they were fighting to establish…on principles of liberty and individual rights. (Both unknown and foreign to Der Donald.)

    The “interests of the nation” (which didn’t exist) or the “interests of the colonies” were the subject of LOTS of pragmatic loyalists. Like you. Going along to get along.

      jack burns in reply to Ragspierre. | September 4, 2016 at 12:42 pm

      Well, if you join an army, its kind of a “collectivist” act. Can’t have a gaggle of free lance privates calling the shots now can we? As far as “not the interests of the nation” you’re kind of twisted in your knickers there. The ideas and pragmatic notions that drove them to sacrifice their safety and wellbeing were at least in some sense putting the welfare of their countrymen ahead of personal comfort, and definitely above conceited whining. Nice try trying to turn Lexington into the Potemkin. You’ll be getting a bump in your beet rations from the leader of your local soviet for that kind of creative pamphleteering.

        Ragspierre in reply to jack burns. | September 4, 2016 at 12:51 pm

        Well, if you join an army, its kind of a “collectivist” act.
        ===========================================

        Well, no. It isn’t. You are ignorant of what “Collectivist” means. You should look it up.

        And, as one who DID join THE Army as a volunteer, I can assure you it is NOT a “collectivist” act.

        When did you serve in uniform, Spunky?

          jack burns in reply to Ragspierre. | September 4, 2016 at 1:04 pm

          Sorry, I forgot, the point of these threads is you and I strayed to the election. Thank you for your service. I’m sure that you were hell on the potatoes. D-Day, for example, was clearly the act a bunch of guys who decided to spend a couple of days on assault barges and all brought their own equipment. I DID not have to go to NAM, got out on the lottery and damned glad of it because at that point it was just covering the retreat. I DID my combat training on the West Side of Chicago, where it was NOT a collectivist activity. I lost friends in Nam so please don’t make it all about you, same for the rest of the military. I brought it up as an example. You exploit it as part of your protracted, tedious biography.
          Spunky? Wow, you are one bad actor. Some compelling fundamental issue here, maybe <5'8"?

I don’t think the polls are any where near accurate. One thing that is not being taken into consideration is Robonomo and caller id. Most people who would support Trump likely have robonomo. For those of you in the dark, this is one of the greatest things since sliced bread. On ATT, line is monitored and if a call comes from one of the telemarketers or other similar venues then it is re-routed and gone. Then, I highly suspect that most Republicans use caller id and don’t pick up unless they see people they know. Thus, few real conservatives getting asked questions. In addition, I think Obama has shafted some many in his base that the math formulas are off.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend