Not while he's still number one in the polls and not with his opposition that have practically no appeal.
Trump is fanning the flames, he's more popular than ever. In fact at this juncture I would say that it's more likely he will stick around long enough to cause a civil war in the Republican party than simply fade away.
His rhetoric is outright racist. But that is unfortunately what his base wants. There's no two-ways about it. If you spout a bunch of racist crap and you RISE in the polls, it means people actually like your racist views. They want to hear more of it. So what does it he do? He gives them more of it.
The evidence is compelling. We are all witnessing the true face of the Republican party.
Trump didn't start off number one. He earned it through racist rhetoric. His supporters love it.
I would add a third question, which is when are most candidates going to have the good sense to drop out?
Some after Iowa, most of the rest after New Hampshire. We're close enough that any candidates already on the bubble will hold out until Iowa just in case they can get a bounce. After New Hampshire there will likely be just a few candidates left.
I'm wondering how Trump's numbers are going to be affected given that he's basically said he's refusing to bow out even if he loses the primary, given that this was an issue earlier.
I'm not defending Trump -- dude is definitely pandering to racism -- but the premise here is flawed. In any election, as a matter of mathematical necessity, somebody is always going to be number one with Stormfront and the KKK.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'm wondering how Trump's numbers are going to be affected given that he's basically said he's refusing to bow out even if he loses the primary, given that this was an issue earlier.
I'm not defending Trump -- dude is definitely pandering to racism -- but the premise here is flawed. In any election, as a matter of mathematical necessity, somebody is always going to be number one with Stormfront and the KKK.
I'm not certain that's definitely true. If no candidate is spouting blatantly racist, nationalistic, and xenophobic remarks, the base of those groups likely either doesn't vote or splits their vote among the various white men Republican candidates.
Trump is #1 with Stormfront and the KKK expressly because he's pushing an agenda that very closely lines up with theirs.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Moderator Helpdesk
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
I'm not certain that's definitely true. If no candidate is spouting blatantly racist, nationalistic, and xenophobic remarks, the base of those groups likely either doesn't vote or splits their vote among the various white men Republican candidates.
I'm not sure you quite understood the point. If they split 40-30-30, the candidate with 40 is number one. If they split 30-20-20-20-10, the candidate with 30 is number one. If they split 51-49, the candidate with 51 is number one. Barring the extremely unlikely possibilities that they split dead evenly or not a single one votes, somebody is always going to be number one. You could have a field of perfectly decent, freedom-loving candidates, and one of them would still be number one. This accident of math does not necessarily speak any less of him or her. An article saying "So-and-so is number one among Stormfront and the KKK" would be fallacious and defamatory in implication, even if correct in bare fact. Just look at all the creationist arguments that hinge on "The Nazis loved Charles Darwin".
This logic, "He's popular among bad guys, therefore he's a bad guy", is what I'm objecting to. What you're saying is the reverse: "He's a bad guy, therefore he's popular among bad guys". And that's much more reasonable. It's because it's reasonable that the other one sounds reasonable too. It's what articles like this hope you'll assume. But in fact these subtle reversals can completely change the value of an argument. It's the difference between "All men are mortals" and "All mortals are men".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'm not sure you quite understood the point. If they split 40-30-30, the candidate with 40 is number one. If they split 30-20-20-20-10, the candidate with 30 is number one. If they split 51-49, the candidate with 51 is number one. Barring the extremely unlikely possibilities that they split dead evenly or not a single one votes, somebody is always going to be number one. You could have a field of perfectly decent, freedom-loving candidates, and one of them would still be number one. This accident of math does not necessarily speak any less of him or her. An article saying "So-and-so is number one among Stormfront and the KKK" would be fallacious and defamatory in implication, even if correct in bare fact. Just look at all the creationist arguments that hinge on "The Nazis loved Charles Darwin".
This logic, "He's popular among bad guys, therefore he's a bad guy", is what I'm objecting to. What you're saying is the reverse: "He's a bad guy, therefore he's popular among bad guys". And that's much more reasonable. It's because it's reasonable that the other one sounds reasonable too. It's what articles like this hope you'll assume. But in fact these subtle reversals can completely change the value of an argument. It's the difference between "All men are mortals" and "All mortals are men".
Okay, sure, I'll grant you that the original headline is poorly worded and implies causation where there's not necessarily any.
But I do think there's also a difference between members of the KKK (and Stormfront) supporting specific candidates and the KKK on the whole supporting a specific candidate. You've got KKK Grand Wizards saying they love Trump because his rhetoric is ballooning their recruitment numbers. You've got White Power groups coming to Trump rallies and shouting "White Power" and beating up black people.
These groups still existed for the 2012 election. Why didn't we see these kind of messages and incidents for their "#1 candidate" back then?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Moderator Helpdesk
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
51% of likely Republican primary voters "strongly favor" Trump's proposal to prevent Muslims from entering the country. An additional 14% "Not so strongly favor" it. Only 22% "strongly oppose" or "not so strongly oppose".
The thing is that there is no xenophobia ceiling that will make Trump unpalatable to the Republican base. The Republican establishment will try to hammer him on whatever unconscionable thing he says, and then they'll realize that most of their voters actually agree with him, and will come crawling back to apologize.
As an outsider looking in, the media doesn't report everything Trump says, and we haven't even heard if Hillary is still alive, but we have been hearing an awful lot.
From what I can see, Trump is putting himself in a position of an alternative, to all the *politically-safe* career politicians who says the right thing.
Most people are sick of them, so they're listening to Trump. Not just listening for comedy value, but actually paying attention.
This is dangerous IMO.
I don't think he's stupid. His actions tell me he's going for the votes he knows no one else is willing to grab, and he'll get them.
His politics are cheap, and low.
The world doesn't need another Ham-fisted rich guy in power like Trump, especially not one with a questionable moral compass and divisive ethics.
You can tell a lot of world leaders are being very careful about what they say about Trump. That tells us that most think he's a chance to win.
As for comparisons to Hitler, yeah I don't know about that, but he can't keep talking about Muslims like he is. If he keeps this up all the the way to the white house, he'd likely be the most hated President before he even takes office, and maybe the most loved too?
I hope like hell he doesn't become President, or it's America dancing the dumb-dumb to the Imperial March once again....
Zero is a bit of an exaggeration don't you think? Unlikely? Sure. But zero?
Okay, it's nonzero in the strict Bayesian epistemological sense that nothing logically possible has probability zero. But practically? No, I'm not exaggerating. His entire strategy is to fire up a particular demographic, disillusioned working-class whites without college educations, and he'll continue to increase his base only as long as he can win over more of this demographic from his rivals. Just count the number of Americans who fit this demographic -- there is a hard ceiling on the number of votes he can get here, and it's not enough to win the general election. Normally candidates seek to break such ceilings by broadening their appeal to other demographics, but Trump has been systematically alienating everybody else as the price of his pernicious populism. He will not win. That's not what I'm worried about. I'm worried about the damage he'll do as a recruiting tool for ISIS before he loses.
(And also that it's never good to hand the other party such an easy victory. Clinton will be a better president if she has to run against a serious Republican opponent.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Not all of them. Putin is a prime, and rather obvious, counterexample.
Of course not all of them. But would you describe the general attitude as "being very careful what they say about Trump"? Because I sure wouldn't. Even Putin in his praise is not being "careful". What slave said was simply wrong, and Putin does not prove him right.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Not all of them. Putin is a prime, and rather obvious, counterexample.
Of course not all of them. But would you describe the general attitude as "being very careful what they say about Trump"? Because I sure wouldn't. Even Putin in his praise is not being "careful". What slave said was simply wrong, and Putin does not prove him right.
Indeed, nobody is watching their words about Trump. World leaders speak their minds about him with unprecedented frankness (ironically, adopting Trump's speaking style). It is also obvious that most of the things that he suggests are outright wrong. However, in politics, very few people care whether or not a candidate is correct, morally speaking. Support from Putin, as well as a significant percentage of Americans, shows that Trump's misguided rhetoric is somehow garnering votes.
Okay, it's nonzero in the strict Bayesian epistemological sense that nothing logically possible has probability zero. But practically? No, I'm not exaggerating. His entire strategy is to fire up a particular demographic, disillusioned working-class whites without college educations, and he'll continue to increase his base only as long as he can win over more of this demographic from his rivals. Just count the number of Americans who fit this demographic -- there is a hard ceiling on the number of votes he can get here, and it's not enough to win the general election. Normally candidates seek to break such ceilings by broadening their appeal to other demographics, but Trump has been systematically alienating everybody else as the price of his pernicious populism. He will not win. That's not what I'm worried about. I'm worried about the damage he'll do as a recruiting tool for ISIS before he loses.
(And also that it's never good to hand the other party such an easy victory. Clinton will be a better president if she has to run against a serious Republican opponent.)
This just came out today. If the general election was Clinton vs. Trump and held right now, it would be very close. People aren't exactly lining up to vote for Hillary; her support is mostly from Washington.
At this point I think the idea that President Trump is going to happen is very plausible.
Is he? According to this he's near his all-time high:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html
Not while he's still number one in the polls and not with his opposition that have practically no appeal.
Trump is fanning the flames, he's more popular than ever. In fact at this juncture I would say that it's more likely he will stick around long enough to cause a civil war in the Republican party than simply fade away.
His rhetoric is outright racist. But that is unfortunately what his base wants. There's no two-ways about it. If you spout a bunch of racist crap and you RISE in the polls, it means people actually like your racist views. They want to hear more of it. So what does it he do? He gives them more of it.
The evidence is compelling. We are all witnessing the true face of the Republican party.
Trump didn't start off number one. He earned it through racist rhetoric. His supporters love it.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Some after Iowa, most of the rest after New Hampshire. We're close enough that any candidates already on the bubble will hold out until Iowa just in case they can get a bounce. After New Hampshire there will likely be just a few candidates left.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
Art is life itself.
Huh, I stand corrected.
I'm wondering how Trump's numbers are going to be affected given that he's basically said he's refusing to bow out even if he loses the primary, given that this was an issue earlier.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Ok, so, tomorrow is the next GOP Debate. We have nine candidates going into it.
We also have four candidates going into the 6:00 PM debate. Why are they still running?
The applause for Trumps plan is revolting. Absolutely revolting.
Bush feels like the closest to the middle, but he talks like someone without a spine.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
I don't even know what exactly he's talking about anymore. I don't think he does either.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/21/politics/lindsey-graham-2016-campaign-drops-out/
I'm not certain that's definitely true. If no candidate is spouting blatantly racist, nationalistic, and xenophobic remarks, the base of those groups likely either doesn't vote or splits their vote among the various white men Republican candidates.
Trump is #1 with Stormfront and the KKK expressly because he's pushing an agenda that very closely lines up with theirs.
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
This logic, "He's popular among bad guys, therefore he's a bad guy", is what I'm objecting to. What you're saying is the reverse: "He's a bad guy, therefore he's popular among bad guys". And that's much more reasonable. It's because it's reasonable that the other one sounds reasonable too. It's what articles like this hope you'll assume. But in fact these subtle reversals can completely change the value of an argument. It's the difference between "All men are mortals" and "All mortals are men".
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Okay, sure, I'll grant you that the original headline is poorly worded and implies causation where there's not necessarily any.
But I do think there's also a difference between members of the KKK (and Stormfront) supporting specific candidates and the KKK on the whole supporting a specific candidate. You've got KKK Grand Wizards saying they love Trump because his rhetoric is ballooning their recruitment numbers. You've got White Power groups coming to Trump rallies and shouting "White Power" and beating up black people.
These groups still existed for the 2012 election. Why didn't we see these kind of messages and incidents for their "#1 candidate" back then?
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
As an outsider looking in, the media doesn't report everything Trump says, and we haven't even heard if Hillary is still alive, but we have been hearing an awful lot.
From what I can see, Trump is putting himself in a position of an alternative, to all the *politically-safe* career politicians who says the right thing.
Most people are sick of them, so they're listening to Trump. Not just listening for comedy value, but actually paying attention.
This is dangerous IMO.
I don't think he's stupid. His actions tell me he's going for the votes he knows no one else is willing to grab, and he'll get them.
His politics are cheap, and low.
The world doesn't need another Ham-fisted rich guy in power like Trump, especially not one with a questionable moral compass and divisive ethics.
You can tell a lot of world leaders are being very careful about what they say about Trump. That tells us that most think he's a chance to win.
As for comparisons to Hitler, yeah I don't know about that, but he can't keep talking about Muslims like he is. If he keeps this up all the the way to the white house, he'd likely be the most hated President before he even takes office, and maybe the most loved too?
I hope like hell he doesn't become President, or it's America dancing the dumb-dumb to the Imperial March once again....
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Zero is a bit of an exaggeration don't you think? Unlikely? Sure. But zero?
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
(And also that it's never good to hand the other party such an easy victory. Clinton will be a better president if she has to run against a serious Republican opponent.)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Not all of them. Putin is a prime, and rather obvious, counterexample.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Indeed, nobody is watching their words about Trump. World leaders speak their minds about him with unprecedented frankness (ironically, adopting Trump's speaking style). It is also obvious that most of the things that he suggests are outright wrong. However, in politics, very few people care whether or not a candidate is correct, morally speaking. Support from Putin, as well as a significant percentage of Americans, shows that Trump's misguided rhetoric is somehow garnering votes.
This just came out today. If the general election was Clinton vs. Trump and held right now, it would be very close. People aren't exactly lining up to vote for Hillary; her support is mostly from Washington.
At this point I think the idea that President Trump is going to happen is very plausible.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
tldr; Any sort of poll on the general election now is worthless.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.