Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Is it too soon to be talking 2020?

Few would have voted for Reagan if they actually knew just how debilitated he was after being shot. Nancy and Cheney were running things for a few years there, and Nancy preferred psychics as advisors. Maybe we need objective physical and mental health exams with published results before primaries for all elected offices. That situation is not all that rare. Amendment 25 was supposed to fix that, but cabinet officers and congress are loath to remove their figurehead, even if he is disabled.

As for Clinton's one transgression, Trump would brag about it if he could find anybody who would have sex with him.

I had no plans to retire either. Yet here I sit in this wheelchair...

I think one of the main reasons Gore lost to Bush was the Clinton scandals. Not just Monica, but a bunch more. At least for those who were non-affiliated with either party. They were tired of them.

that's my opinion as no exit polling asked the question that I can find about the effects of the Clinton scandals on how they voted. So I have no numbers to back up my opinion.

We might compare favorable/unfavorable ratings, on election day 2000 Bush had a 58% favorable, 38% unfavorable, Gore 55% favorable, 43% unfavorable. I can't find Bill Clinton's favorable/unfavorable's for election day 2000, but I do have his job approval numbers for that date, 57% approve, 38% disapprove.

So these numbers say it would have been a tossup between Bush vs. Bill Clinton for a third term had he been able to run.

Sorry, just because you and I don't fall for it doesn't mean that millions upon millions aren't befuddled by his charisma. They loved him on the Celebrity Apprentice, they admire his wealth and his brash demeanor.

Charisma won him the election in 2016 because even though she was America's most admired woman for 17 years straight Hillary has no charisma.

It wasn't her emails...it was her failure to connect with enough voters on the visceral level that makes them WANT to follow you wherever you go.

I think we have to disagree about Trump having charisma. The definition of Charisma is exercising a compelling charm which inspires devotion in others.

Trump was in no way charming. Obnoxious, uncouth, egotistic among other adjectives come to mind.

Then I found this: a special power that some people have naturally that makes them able to influence other people and attract their attention and admiration:

Perhaps with so many devoted to him, number two may apply. There were other definitions with magnetic personality, etc. I suppose charisma like so many other things is seen in the eye of the beholder. Now JFK, Reagan, Bill Clinton and Obama I would classify as charismatic, they meet my definition of being charismatic, but not Trump.

As for Hillary, you may have hit it on the head. She had no charisma, no personality trait that made people want to follow her to the moon and back. Trump's supporters were willing to go to the four corners of the earth for him. The three words I heard most often in how Hillary came across during her campaign were aloof, elitist and fake.

Now there could have been something else also, perhaps people like her in a subordinate roll. As first lady, as senator from New York, as secretary of state. But not as the head honcho, the boss. Bill put her in charge of health care, then viola, 1994 happened and Democrats lost control of the house for the first time in 40 years. As secretary of state, she was doing President Obama's foreign policy directives and wants. I'm not going to say anything about her being a senator, she's from New York, me, from Georgia. New Yorkers seemed to like her.

By this I mean as a military man for example, I knew many Lieutenants that were very good getting instructions/orders from the CO and following through with those orders/instructions. The old I want this done and the LT's would make sure it was done. But I sure wouldn't want them to be in charge of the company where they were deciding what needed to be done and what not was to be done. Having them being the ones who decided what orders to issue and what ones not to, what tactics to use and what tactics not to use, ditto for strategy.

They were great number two's, but I'd never want them in the number one position.

Trump is a professional con man. He has been doing it for years and screwing virtually everybody he comes into contact with. He also gathered others, of his ilk, to help him and then dumped them. He did give some a free pass if they had dirt on him. Con men tend to be VERY good with people when they want to be and I suspect Trump of being the same. His problem now is that he is supposed to be running a country and not a person to person con. That is, I think, why he keeps screwing it up. He is, basically, out of his depth but, still, he is getting away with it.

I don't expect the truth of the Trump presidency until he is no longer president/dictator and that is going to be something like three months from now, or not. If he goes THEN we will get the truth. The interesting thing will be to watch the supporters, especially those with something to lose (money, stature, job). Well, not only intersting but pretty entertaining as well.

I just wish the Dems would display a little more vigor in Trump attacks. When, for instance, have we heard how many house legislative efforts have been stopped by Trump and Do-nothing Mitch? There isn't a single Trumpy Senator up for election that should win! Not a single one! They are wide open to ongoing, unending abuse. Hopefully that is happening although the Dems have always felt themselves to actually be above the fray and have always demonstrated their ability to screw it up. This time, however, they have fallen away Republicans, like the Lincoln project to help them.

A lot of the criticisms I hear about Hillary are traits that would be admired in a man. So I think most anti-Hillary animus comes down to ideas about traditional roles for women. And a lot of the people suffering from that tunnel vision are women themselves. I was a bit disappointed that so many women would vote for a self-admitted sex offender instead of a woman who has taught Sunday school. I thought women were a bit more woke.

The breakdown between men and women followed the party ID real close.
All Republicans 88% Trump 8% Hillary
All Democrats 89% Hillary 8% Trump
Republican Men 89% Trump 7% Hillary
Republican Women 88% Trump 9% Hillary
Democratic Men 87% Hillary, 9% Trump
Democratic Women 91% Hillary, 7% Trump

So rather men or women, they followed their party within a single point one way or the other with the exception of Democratic Women which voted 2 points above all Democrats.

For fun, let me throw in independents.
All Independents Trump 46%, Hillary 42% Third Party 12%
Independent men Trump 50%, Hillary 38%, Third Party 12%
Independent Women Trump 42%, Hillary 47%, Third Party 11%

Trump won independent men by 12, lost independent women by 5. But what we see is the dislike both major party candidates by independent men who voted third party 12% and independent women voting third party 11% are almost the same percentage.

Men and women followed their party line or ID, party loyalty more important than the sex of the candidates. This also shows the dislike of both major party candidate was even among independent men and women.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

Trump lucked out winning Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin by a few thousand votes each. I don't think him winning those three states can be credited to the gender issue as party loyalty applied in each state.

What probably did let Trump win those three states was the union household vote. Hillary did 7-10 points worse than Obama did with union households in those three states. Pennsylvania, Obama received 60% of the union household vote, Hillary 50%, in Michigan, Obama received 61% of the union household vote, Hillary 53%, in Wisconsin Obama 60% to Hillary's 53%. Nationally, it was Obama 58%, Hillary 51%. The Democrats were losing support of the working man.

For the record, union households made up 21% of the vote in Wisconsin, 28% in Michigan and 26% in Pennsylvania.

I think political ideology and party loyalty triumphs gender. I don't think most democrats would vote for a conservative woman if the GOP nominated one or vice versa. History shows most party members vote for candidates of their party regardless of gender and I will add race to that.

I'd like to give you the breakdown of independents men vs women on the favorable/unfavorable view of both candidates, but the polls never broke them down by party and gender. The polls showed nationally, male and female with out party affiliation. But under party affiliation, it wasn't broken down into male and female, they were all lumped together.

Nationally is the best I can do.
males Hillary Clinton 38% favorable/61% unfavorable
Trump 41% favorable/57% unfavorable
Females Hillary Clinton 47% favorable/52% unfavorable
Trump 36% favorable/64% unfavorable

Final election results
males Trump 52-41 over Clinton
females Clinton 54-41 over Trump

With the numbers in the post above, party affiliation was decisive. Democratic men and women voted for Hillary. Republican men and women voted for Trump. Regardless of gender, party affiliation and I'll add ideology wins out.

Averaging out the elections from 2000-16 men averaged 52% republican/42% Democratic. Females averaged 54% Democratic/45% Republican. So the male vote in 2016 matched the 5 election average almost to a tee. The female average voting for Hillary was exact, but the female vote for Trump was 4 points below the 5 election average. They probably voted third party.

Charisma. I have always associated that word with a positive meaning of attractiveness, though in thinking a bit more deeply about charismatic people I don’t necessarily equate it universally with doing good things.

Clearly, Trump has this power over a fairly sizable number of people, but for the life of me I can’t understand why. To me he is such an obvious shallow con man, ugly, unprincipled, lying, and evil, that I was repulsed the first time I saw him appear back in the 1980s. To say that Trump is charismatic seems like a perversion of the meaning of the word, but how else to explain the power he has over so many people?

I have a theory that understanding comes from an alchemical reaction between knowledge and experience - we can learn things by reading or being told about them (knowledge), but it takes the addition of experiencing those things to create and understanding of them. I do not understand Trump followers because I can’t find even a whiff of inclination in myself to believe his lying and gaslighting. That leaves me with trying to explain his power intellectually, which is not very satisfying or useful in arguing with his followers.

It might be that focusing on Trump is looking through the lens backwards. The more substantive issue might be the mental disorder that the folks who worship him are suffering from.

The obstacle remains that I don’t have any relevant experience to draw upon to understand that problem, either.

My old signature line was, “You can’t solve a problem until you understand what the problem is.” Frankly, I don’t understand Trump followers. I am pretty sure that the problem isn’t with me, though (but how do we ever know for sure?)