Gary Johnson regularly polled at 5% in 2012, ended up with <1% of the vote. Jill Stein regularly polled at 3-4%, ended up with less than half a percent of the vote. Bob Barr also hit 5-6% in polls in 2008, ended up with less than half a percent. Ralph Nader's 2000 run is the only recent election where one of these parties managed to actually get close to their pre-election polling numbers.
Of course, before that, Ross Perot's runs actually did get him >5% of the vote. Look how well that worked out for the reform party, who actually did get federal funding for the 2000 election. They promptly lost it after coming in a distant fourth.
The Reform Party actually could have taken off. They elected Jesse Ventura to governor of Minnesota in 1998 which was a massive coup as far as third party victories go.
The problem was Pat Buchanan joined the Reform Party and took over, using the federal funding to pay off previous campaign debts from his failed 1992 and 1996 presidential runs. Once Buchanan secured the Reform nomination he then ran no meaningful campaign to kill the party. It was essentially an act of sabotage to make sure the Reform party would not affect the GOP.
The funny thing was Trump was trying to run for president back then under the Reform party at that time. He detested Buchanan. Now Buchanan is one of Trump's most ardent supporters... which actually makes a lot of sense in retrospect despite their quarrels in 2000.
From what I've read Mike Pence would not be elevated to the top of the ticket if Trump ever left the race (either voluntarily or against his own volition) because the presidential and VP nominations are separately voted on. The GOP would likely call an emergency conference call as sort of a makeshift convention to parachute a white knight into Trump's place. As azmod mentioned, many states will have their ballots locked in with Trump's name. They could mitigate that sort of damage if they did it NOW, but realistically speaking by the time they would replace Trump it would be too late in many states to get the new candidate's name on the ballot.
What will likely happen is that the GOP will simply yank their funding from Trump's campaign and divert money to downticket races in order to preserve the House, Senate, and state level offices. At this point most of the sane GOP officials realize this election is lost. Trump refuses to pivot (as seen in his hiring of the Breitbart exec and demoting Manafort), refuses to keep his mouth shut, and does not want to work with GOP officials in building critical campaign infrastructure. Barring a complete disaster or unfounded revelation or scandal to come out of Hillary's campaign, Trump is facing down the barrel of a blowout on election day.
Trump will still be the official nominee but it will become a zombie campaign. He'll still hold his rallies and continue to dominate traditional and social media, but he will be getting no support from the GOP higher-ups and donors. There already is precedent for the GOP doing this -- this is exactly what happened to Bob Dole in 1996. The GOP pulled his funding and diverted it on preserving Congress. Dole got wiped out on election night to Bill Clinton but the GOP still controlled Congress. The real fun will be what happens after the election. There has been talk that Trump wants to start his own cable network and considering the context of what he's done since the conventions ended it makes a lot of sense. Trump is self-destructing, but he's also solidifying his base at the same time so he can lay the groundwork for a news channel. I would not be surprised to see Trump News Channel become a thing in the next year.
Al Gore was a weak candidate. Ralph Nadar would not have had nearly the influence he could have if Al Gore had been able to shore up the Democrat base away from the the Republicans and the Green Party. While there are many facets out of Ralph Nadar's campaign's control, there is at least one. He shares the burden, not holds all the burden.
So third party candidates matter a lot when the candidates of the two majority party are not well liked.
That's great.
Clinton is probably the least-liked Democratic Party nominee since Jimmy Carter (spit-balling here, but in all honesty I think she's less liked than Carter during his campaign against Reagan).
The Republican Party is pretty much united in the single premise that Clinton CANNOT become the President. This is such to the point that they actually went and accepted the nomination of someone who's not actually a Republican in ideology, simply because that man had the backing of the populist element of the Republican Party and they knew that doing anything would ensure CLinton's nomination.
So, there you have it. The Republicans will do everything to deny a Clinton victory. Clinton doesn't rile up the Democratic general support base, and likely the non-decided for that matter. In fact, many of the liberals commonly associated with the Democratic Party (and probably the people who pushed Obama to victory in 08) see Clinton as a morally bankrupt, plain corrupt individual who stole the election from the man who really should have been nominated.
Given all this, I think it would be fair to say that this would be a highly contested race. I think all this brouhaha about the polling is misleading and possibly downright dangerous. Remember that the Carter/Reagan contest was neck to neck up until the end, when Reagan won by a landslide.
Also remember that, at the start of this year, Trump was considered a joke candidate who may win a primary here and there, but would eventually be shut-out. When he started actually winning and Bush and others dropped out, people thought that the field would become consolidated and so the true Republican candidate (not Trump) would emerge victorious.
I think going with your conscience and voting for a third-party candidiate in this situation is nuts.
Except the GOP is anything *but* united. TIME actually had a very good article a few days ago showing just how much Trump has pissed off the GOP because he can't stop making gaffes and shutting up since the conventions ended. (If it weren't under a paywall I would link it) He is majorly behind in a lot of national polls that have been released and he is causing normally red states like Georgia, Arizona, and even South Carolina to be in danger of being won by Clinton. Even Utah isn't safe. There was an internal poll that was released a few weeks ago showing that Gary Johnson is at 26% in Utah, mere percentage points from Trump who only had 29% (and Clinton with 27%). For a state that should be a very easy win for any GOP candidate, that is an unmitigated disaster. To make matters even worse, there is a good chance that Mitt Romney will endorse Gary Johnson soon (he and Bill Weld are huge friends and has said he is looking into supporting the ticket). Given that he's highly respected in Utah, if Romney endorses Johnson, Trump is done in Utah.
It's gotten to the point where they are just about ready to pull the plug on Trump's campaign and focus on downticket races to preserve the House and Senate. Obviously the GOP does not want to see Hillary become president, but they can stonewall her into oblivion for 4 years and make it so that she cannot do anything at all. I don't really understand the Reagan comparisons because Reagan wasn't anything close to Trump in terms of his attitude and ability to get people behind him. If anything, Trump is going to go the route of Bob Dole, or, dare I say it... Barry Goldwater.
Except here's the thing: I think the problem is they didn't reshoot enough.
The problem with this movie isn't the comedy bits. The problem is when they're trying to be serious, which ends up being dull, boring, and completely lifeless. The comedic moments are the best parts of the film, because at least then there's some life and charm.
A lot of it boils down to studio interference. The execs want one cut of the movie and the director prefers his own vision. They apparently had two different cuts of the movie and tried to mash them together for horrible results.
Also doesn't help that the reshoots for Suicide Squad came in the 11th hour.
She also just seems to have come out of nowhere and runs for the White House every four years. It's a bit presumptive (and yes, I know, Donald Trump does the same thing; I mean, strictly speaking, Johnson has more experience than Trump, but that's for another thread) to run for the White House with so little experience. I mean, even the classic 'outsider' candidate is usually just 'a congressman, governor, state legislator, or the mayor of a major city'.
In any case, "there are still questions [about vaccines]" is classic FUD.
To be fair, this is only her second run at President. (Same with Johnson)
She is definitely extremely crazy and the Green Party needs a more pragmatic approach similar to what the Libertarian Party has done ever since they got Johnson to defect to them in 2012. This is especially true as the Democrats continue their transformation into the white-collar, cosmopolitan party. Greens have a big opportunity to pick up working class individuals.
We all know where this is going: Ralph Nadar was a spoiler in 2000. You just have to know where to look.
First, let's get the most obvious thing out of the way. Al Gore lost Florida by less than a thousand votes, leading to a final score of Bush 271 to Gore 266. However, Florida was a giant mess to begin with and to be honest, there's a much quieter example that I found just by chance: New Hampshire.
Here are the following relevant numbers:
Bush won New Hampshire by 1.27%. Bush had 273,559 votes. Gore had 266,348 votes. Nadar had 22,198 votes. The rest of the Northeast was blue. New Hampshire itself has been blue in every election since 1992 sans 2000, and it's not unrealistic to think that ~8,000 people would have opted for Al Gore instead of Nadar had he not made the ballot, which would have shifted the score to Gore 270 v. Bush 267, thus altering the course of history. (Source)
What this tells me is that first a protest vote may not make much of a difference nationally, but regionally it can create a cascading effect. Second, if your protest vote does become important enough to get noticed (Nadar's National Vote was just under 3%, so that threshold can be small depending on the circumstances), then also depending on the circumstances, no one may care because they're too busy freaking out the other guy just won.
Many people who believe Nader spoiled the election miss two critical factors that were beyond Nader's sphere of influence:
1. About 12% of Democrats in Florida voted for Bush. That is roughly equivalent to over 200,000 votes, FAR more than Nader's total in Florida. If even just 1% of that group votes for Gore, he wins Florida.
2. Al Gore failed to win his home state of Tennessee, which was won by Bill Clinton in the last two elections. If Gore won Tennessee, the election would be over right then and there.
You're assuming that dominating the airwaves is a good thing. His poll numbers resoundingly demonstrate that the media continually focusing on him is not a good thing for him. He has never been a favorite in this election and each of his gaffes only cements Clinton's formidable lead.
Besides, it's easy to realize the underlying pattern here: he's a narcissist that needs to be the center of attention at all times. This is not some brilliant strategic move.
Trump's base is not all white supremacists, I did not mean to imply that. However, he continually panders to them and to other elements of the alt-right and it is not working out for him. I doubt the GOP is going to let their next candidate so blatantly pander to such unsavory groups. Antiestablishment movements are nothing new and tend not to pan out.
They can significantly influence and reshape the party even if they don't win elections. Barry Goldwater and William Jennings Bryan were "anti-establishment" candidates and both were responsible for shaping the Republican and Democratic parties largely as they are today.
The trailer I saw had the same feel as the Suicide Squad clips I saw. Just this side of campy and amateurish. If they wrote the Suicide Squad script in 6 weeks that explains a lot. It also seems to be what they did with Justice League. They are in such a panic to play catch up with Marvel that they are half ass'ing the whole process. Rather then this childish, " We have a Cinematic Universe Too, look at us" approach They need to build off the Dark Knight example with quality stories about their fan favorite characters.
As you said, DC is in catch-up mode right now. Suicide Squad was greenlit back in October 2014, literally right after Guardians of the Galaxy was a huge success. DC never gave it time to materialize. Everything they've done so far has been trying to copy Marvel's success without doing all the heavy legwork needed to make a cinematic universe work.
If there's one word to describe this movie, it's sloppy.
The script was written in just 6 weeks and boy did it show. Editing and pacing were very bad, likely just as bad as in Batman v Superman, villain was very forgettable and lame, and I wasn't digging Leto's performance as the Joker. He felt too much of a try-hard in the role.
Suicide Squad is probably going to pull a Batman v Superman where it has a huge opening weekend but the bad reviews and bad word of mouth cause it to collapse at the box office. If that happens, DC is in huge trouble. I actually think they will pull the plug on their whole cinematic universe if the Justice League movie doesn't break $1 billion.
The main difference between the party 4 years ago and now is that the candidate is literally crazy and incompetent this time around. But, party platform hasn't budged in the way the autopsy said it needed to for the party to grow.
Is that a more fair explanation of what I meant?
Edit: I don't think that you can expect Trump to follow the platform; but that doesn't mean that he's not ultimately running on it.
If ordinary Republicans really cared about the platform, they would have submitted to Jeb, Rubio, Kasich, or maybe Cruz.
People didn't gravitate toward Trump because he was promising tax reductions and cuts in government spending. No, the base went for Trump because of trade deals and "build the wall". That's why all the movement conservatives and think-tank types are freaking out over Trump. That's why the 2012 autopsy blew up in the face of the establishment. The people at National Review and Heritage Foundation (among other institutions) are finally coming to grips that the voters they court really don't care as much about the platform as they do. The voters want a more European style of conservatism that is much more nationalist and economically liberal than what the think-tanks approve of. There's a reason why Trump refuses to touch SS and Medicare, for example. His supporters would instantaneously revolt if he laid a finger on those programs, despite those supporters being life-long Republicans.
My understanding is that Johnson supported civil unions as early as 2001 and kept his true support for gay marriage largely hidden because he feared being exiled from the GOP. Bill Weld also was also blocked from becoming the US ambassador to Mexico back in 1997 because a fellow Republican did not approve of Weld's socially liberal views.
Libertarians as a whole have been ahead of supporting gay marriage for quite some time. Democrats really didn't care for gay marriage until they could use it as political leverage. Obama opposing it in 2008 and then suddenly changing his view in 2012 is a good example of this, as well as Hillary's sudden reversal on the issue as well.
Give me a break. This is pathetic. You say Johnson backed gay marriage "LONG before Hillary", and when called on it, point out that, well, Johnson supported civil unions in 2001. Nevermind that Clinton supported civil unions in 2000. Apparently her evolution on gay marriage is "opportunistic", but Johnson's evolution (who you believe lied about his true position to improve his electoral prospects) is not? And nevermind that Bill Weld also dropped his support for gay marriage when he tried to run for governor of NY in 2006.
Somehow, despite all this, you've managed to get it into your head that the Libertarian ticket are the exemplars of gay rights in this election. The cognitive dissonance is staggering.
It's not cognitive dissonance. Libertarians support gay marriage under the guise that people should be allowed to make voluntary decisions in their life. Democrats support gay marriage to score political points. It's a critical difference.
Honestly you should check out Gary Johnson. He and Bill Weld (his running mate) both supported gay marriage LONG before Hillary and most Democrats did. Libertarians tend to be naturally liberal on social issues, but not because of opportunistic reasons. Johnson also has a history of building his own construction business from the ground up. From a business perspective, Johnson is a guy that I can relate to more than Trump, on a personal level.
Johnson supported gay marriage in 2011. Hillary Clinton supported gay marriage in 2013. In what world does this count as "LONG" before? From the perspective of Magicman's objection, they both came around in the same period - after gay marriage looked like it had the backing of the majority of Americans.
My understanding is that Johnson supported civil unions as early as 2001 and kept his true support for gay marriage largely hidden because he feared being exiled from the GOP. Bill Weld also was also blocked from becoming the US ambassador to Mexico back in 1997 because a fellow Republican did not approve of Weld's socially liberal views.
Libertarians as a whole have been ahead of supporting gay marriage for quite some time. Democrats really didn't care for gay marriage until they could use it as political leverage. Obama opposing it in 2008 and then suddenly changing his view in 2012 is a good example of this, as well as Hillary's sudden reversal on the issue as well.
Please keep in mind I'm not trying to support either side, I'm just pushing back against the idea that Trump is *significantly* worse than Clinton. I'm not saying that he's a great human being; quite the opposite actually. I'm saying that both him and Clinton are ******* awful, but in different ways. The thing for me is, Clinton is awful in more malicious, self serving ways, whereas Trump is more of a loud mouthed idiot. He's intentionally hyperbolic because it's part of his strategy to control the media's attention. It really seems to me like he probably knows that a lot of what he says is only partially true at best and just makes it into the biggest / most egregious statement possible specifically for the purpose of trying to dominate headlines.
I don't like the platforms of either candidate, because there's basically zero chance they're going to actually do any of the things they say. Trump just makes ***** up every interview while Hillary will literally say anything to get elected and then not do it unless it serves her own agenda. Look at her history of "defending the sanctity of marriage" right up until ~51% of Americans supported gay rights, and then it was a totally different story. I guess equal rights shouldn't apply to people if they aren't popular! Do you really think she's going to take on Wall Street and address any of the real financial problems in the country, or do you think she'll pretend like she's going to and then say "Well I tried my best" after not changing a damn thing? On the other hand, Trump is never going to build the wall, and he has to know this. It sounds like a reasonable idea on a purely theoretical level, until you start looking at things like how effective will it be, how will it get funded, is Congress really going to approve the budget for it, etc. That's not going to stop him from pushing for it though, because even though the wall itself is a bad idea, the idea driving it of immigration reform is actually something that resonates with a lot of people. Again, I'm not giving either side any particular benefit of the doubt here; I don't care what they claim they'll do, most of it isn't likely to ever happen anyway.
His business endeavors have had both failures and successes, and that's to be expected - you have to take risks to get ahead. Sometimes they pan out, sometimes not. I look at it like this - he's at least smart enough with his business that he's still rich *in spite* of his multiple bankruptcies. Clearly it must have been a sound financial decision, and I don't fault a private individual for taking maximum advantage of the law when it's in that person's best interest. If I had the money to build myself a golden tower with a golden throne in it with my name in gold on it, I'd probably do it. I don't see that as a negative; he's free to spend his money on whatever he wants.
BTW, The reason he's not going to release his tax returns is so he doesn't have to show us all the legal loopholes he uses to pay as little tax as possible. A lot of people are too stupid to be mad at the taxation system for enabling / encouraging him to do it and will instead unfairly blame him for doing what's in his own financial best interest.
Honestly you should check out Gary Johnson. He and Bill Weld (his running mate) both supported gay marriage LONG before Hillary and most Democrats did. Libertarians tend to be naturally liberal on social issues, but not because of opportunistic reasons. Johnson also has a history of building his own construction business from the ground up. From a business perspective, Johnson is a guy that I can relate to more than Trump, on a personal level.
When I compare cards, I look at them from a game theory point of view. I don't take expansion symbols, rarity, or any of that into account. I look at the functionality of the cards (ie what it says on the card).
Both elves are the exact same at what they do. The only thing different are their names (which is irrelevant because Meddling Mage can equally block either one from being played).
Tyler Durden, saying Ashcoat Bears is strictly better than Grizzly Bears is just plain incorrect. Maybe you won't come across a crazy Mindslaver situation over the course of a game, but the fact of the matter is, that situation is possible in a game of Magic and it exists. This throws the 100% better in every single situation out of the window, and it completely invalidates the argument that Ashcoat is strictly better than Grizzly.
Mindslaver makes sure that "strictly better" doesn't exist in Magic. It still boggles my mind how people haven't grasped onto that concept yet.
BTW, Murganda Petroglyphs makes it so Grizzly Bears is better than Ashcoat Bears.
The Reform Party actually could have taken off. They elected Jesse Ventura to governor of Minnesota in 1998 which was a massive coup as far as third party victories go.
The problem was Pat Buchanan joined the Reform Party and took over, using the federal funding to pay off previous campaign debts from his failed 1992 and 1996 presidential runs. Once Buchanan secured the Reform nomination he then ran no meaningful campaign to kill the party. It was essentially an act of sabotage to make sure the Reform party would not affect the GOP.
The funny thing was Trump was trying to run for president back then under the Reform party at that time. He detested Buchanan. Now Buchanan is one of Trump's most ardent supporters... which actually makes a lot of sense in retrospect despite their quarrels in 2000.
What will likely happen is that the GOP will simply yank their funding from Trump's campaign and divert money to downticket races in order to preserve the House, Senate, and state level offices. At this point most of the sane GOP officials realize this election is lost. Trump refuses to pivot (as seen in his hiring of the Breitbart exec and demoting Manafort), refuses to keep his mouth shut, and does not want to work with GOP officials in building critical campaign infrastructure. Barring a complete disaster or unfounded revelation or scandal to come out of Hillary's campaign, Trump is facing down the barrel of a blowout on election day.
Trump will still be the official nominee but it will become a zombie campaign. He'll still hold his rallies and continue to dominate traditional and social media, but he will be getting no support from the GOP higher-ups and donors. There already is precedent for the GOP doing this -- this is exactly what happened to Bob Dole in 1996. The GOP pulled his funding and diverted it on preserving Congress. Dole got wiped out on election night to Bill Clinton but the GOP still controlled Congress. The real fun will be what happens after the election. There has been talk that Trump wants to start his own cable network and considering the context of what he's done since the conventions ended it makes a lot of sense. Trump is self-destructing, but he's also solidifying his base at the same time so he can lay the groundwork for a news channel. I would not be surprised to see Trump News Channel become a thing in the next year.
Except the GOP is anything *but* united. TIME actually had a very good article a few days ago showing just how much Trump has pissed off the GOP because he can't stop making gaffes and shutting up since the conventions ended. (If it weren't under a paywall I would link it) He is majorly behind in a lot of national polls that have been released and he is causing normally red states like Georgia, Arizona, and even South Carolina to be in danger of being won by Clinton. Even Utah isn't safe. There was an internal poll that was released a few weeks ago showing that Gary Johnson is at 26% in Utah, mere percentage points from Trump who only had 29% (and Clinton with 27%). For a state that should be a very easy win for any GOP candidate, that is an unmitigated disaster. To make matters even worse, there is a good chance that Mitt Romney will endorse Gary Johnson soon (he and Bill Weld are huge friends and has said he is looking into supporting the ticket). Given that he's highly respected in Utah, if Romney endorses Johnson, Trump is done in Utah.
It's gotten to the point where they are just about ready to pull the plug on Trump's campaign and focus on downticket races to preserve the House and Senate. Obviously the GOP does not want to see Hillary become president, but they can stonewall her into oblivion for 4 years and make it so that she cannot do anything at all. I don't really understand the Reagan comparisons because Reagan wasn't anything close to Trump in terms of his attitude and ability to get people behind him. If anything, Trump is going to go the route of Bob Dole, or, dare I say it... Barry Goldwater.
A lot of it boils down to studio interference. The execs want one cut of the movie and the director prefers his own vision. They apparently had two different cuts of the movie and tried to mash them together for horrible results.
Also doesn't help that the reshoots for Suicide Squad came in the 11th hour.
To be fair, this is only her second run at President. (Same with Johnson)
She is definitely extremely crazy and the Green Party needs a more pragmatic approach similar to what the Libertarian Party has done ever since they got Johnson to defect to them in 2012. This is especially true as the Democrats continue their transformation into the white-collar, cosmopolitan party. Greens have a big opportunity to pick up working class individuals.
Many people who believe Nader spoiled the election miss two critical factors that were beyond Nader's sphere of influence:
1. About 12% of Democrats in Florida voted for Bush. That is roughly equivalent to over 200,000 votes, FAR more than Nader's total in Florida. If even just 1% of that group votes for Gore, he wins Florida.
2. Al Gore failed to win his home state of Tennessee, which was won by Bill Clinton in the last two elections. If Gore won Tennessee, the election would be over right then and there.
They can significantly influence and reshape the party even if they don't win elections. Barry Goldwater and William Jennings Bryan were "anti-establishment" candidates and both were responsible for shaping the Republican and Democratic parties largely as they are today.
Suicide Squad had a lot of production troubles. This article here goes into more detail about it: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/suicide-squads-secret-drama-rushed-916693
As you said, DC is in catch-up mode right now. Suicide Squad was greenlit back in October 2014, literally right after Guardians of the Galaxy was a huge success. DC never gave it time to materialize. Everything they've done so far has been trying to copy Marvel's success without doing all the heavy legwork needed to make a cinematic universe work.
The script was written in just 6 weeks and boy did it show. Editing and pacing were very bad, likely just as bad as in Batman v Superman, villain was very forgettable and lame, and I wasn't digging Leto's performance as the Joker. He felt too much of a try-hard in the role.
Suicide Squad is probably going to pull a Batman v Superman where it has a huge opening weekend but the bad reviews and bad word of mouth cause it to collapse at the box office. If that happens, DC is in huge trouble. I actually think they will pull the plug on their whole cinematic universe if the Justice League movie doesn't break $1 billion.
If ordinary Republicans really cared about the platform, they would have submitted to Jeb, Rubio, Kasich, or maybe Cruz.
People didn't gravitate toward Trump because he was promising tax reductions and cuts in government spending. No, the base went for Trump because of trade deals and "build the wall". That's why all the movement conservatives and think-tank types are freaking out over Trump. That's why the 2012 autopsy blew up in the face of the establishment. The people at National Review and Heritage Foundation (among other institutions) are finally coming to grips that the voters they court really don't care as much about the platform as they do. The voters want a more European style of conservatism that is much more nationalist and economically liberal than what the think-tanks approve of. There's a reason why Trump refuses to touch SS and Medicare, for example. His supporters would instantaneously revolt if he laid a finger on those programs, despite those supporters being life-long Republicans.
It's not cognitive dissonance. Libertarians support gay marriage under the guise that people should be allowed to make voluntary decisions in their life. Democrats support gay marriage to score political points. It's a critical difference.
My understanding is that Johnson supported civil unions as early as 2001 and kept his true support for gay marriage largely hidden because he feared being exiled from the GOP. Bill Weld also was also blocked from becoming the US ambassador to Mexico back in 1997 because a fellow Republican did not approve of Weld's socially liberal views.
Libertarians as a whole have been ahead of supporting gay marriage for quite some time. Democrats really didn't care for gay marriage until they could use it as political leverage. Obama opposing it in 2008 and then suddenly changing his view in 2012 is a good example of this, as well as Hillary's sudden reversal on the issue as well.
Honestly you should check out Gary Johnson. He and Bill Weld (his running mate) both supported gay marriage LONG before Hillary and most Democrats did. Libertarians tend to be naturally liberal on social issues, but not because of opportunistic reasons. Johnson also has a history of building his own construction business from the ground up. From a business perspective, Johnson is a guy that I can relate to more than Trump, on a personal level.