Election 2016

Why Do GOP Detractors Insist That Donald Trump Is Only Popular Among Dumb, Poor Whites?

They are afraid to admit that the insurgent billionaire is genuinely popular among all types of Republicans.

|

You know the rap against Donald Trump, right? He's playing to the anger of relatively poor and relatively dumb (read: uneducated) white hicks who are political neophytes. As National Review's Reihan Salam puts it in a column at Slate, "Trump is strongest not in the metropolitan corners of America, where he's spent most of his life. Rather, his strongholds are the mostly overlooked sections of the South, Appalachia, and the rural and semi-rural North."

That's a comforting myth for Republican activists because they can then pretend that Trump doesn't really represent their party even as he scores yuge wins in primaries of "moderate" states such as New Hampshire.

But as Elizabeth Price Foley points out at Instapundit, it's just not true. The plain fact is that Trump is crushing his GOP competition across all demographics. 

I'm not sure what makes Salam think that Americans of "Scots-Irish" descent are poor Appalachian hillbillies with substance abuse problems. This odd racial stereotyping aside, Salam is simply wrong that Trump's primary support emerges from poor, uneducated whites, an unsupportable myth I've written about before that keeps getting repeated by the GOPe and Democrats alike.

More importantly, I hardly think that a platform of issues that are important to all Americans–national security, jobs, immigration (all of which are intimately related)–is fairly characterized as a racial dog whistle, unless one believes that these issues are particularly "white" (or more specifically, "Scots-Irish") issues.

Read more here.

Consider these exit polls from New Hampshire, where Trump smoked his nearest opponent, John Kasich, by close to 20 points. He won both genders, all age groups, all income levels, and all educational levels.

More exit summaries here.

Polls taken last year show that while Trump is particularly strong among less-educated voters, he stacks up very well against opponents across all ideologies and when it comes to education levels, too. From an Los Angeles Times account in December:

About one-third of Republican voters who have a high school education or less back Trump, which puts him far ahead of Ben Carson, the retired neurosurgeon, who is in second place with that group, at 17%. Ted Cruz at 9%, Sen. Marcio Rubio of Florida at 7% and Bush at 6% round out the top five.

But among those with a college degree or more, Trump's lead is much smaller. He has 21% of the voters in that group, compared with 19% for Carson, 13% for Rubio, 9% for Cruz and 6% for Bush.

Got that: He's more popular among Republicans who went to college than any of the other guys, too. Just not as popular as he is among high-school grads.

Coming out of Iowa, Trump also did well with college grads (he grabbed 22 percent of them to Ted Cruz's 26 percent) and post-grads (20 percent to 23 percent).

More here.

I understand why educated and cosmopolitan Republicans are freaked out by Trump: He's eating the party's lunch at this point.

And he is crass, vulgar, and generally unthinking. The things he says about women such as Megyn Kelly and Carly Fiorina, the way he reveled in Ted Cruz being called a pussy, how he thinks of Mexicans—these are all deeply embarrassing to anyone with any sense of shame or decency. His policies, such as they are, are stupid and embarrassing, revolving mostly around statements of self-aggrandizement and obsessions with masculinity, greatness, weakness, and an ability to bend people to his will.

And yet, the sooner that finely mannered Republicans admit that he pretty perfectly matches their longstanding anxieties and aspirations, the sooner they might either learn to live with him as their presidential nominee or radically alter the party they think he is somehow stealing from them. But to pretend that Trump is not representative of the GOP or has no constituency among coastal, urban elites? Yeah, dream on.

NEXT: Good Ted Cruz Ad, Bad Ted Cruz Ad, Gilmore Goes Away: P.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Don’t forget that he’s popular among independents and many Democrats that are tired of the status quo and/or dynastic politics.

    1. I’m surprised at how many of my colleagues are Trump fans. Highly educated people can believe dumb things too.

      1. Highly educated…Florida.
        Highly educated…Florida.
        Highly educated.
        …Florida?

        1. Are you not familiar with UF, UM, FSU, ha ha ha, I could say that with a straight face.

          1. I am aware of football programs with those names.

            You are telling me that they stand for something else too?

    2. Wrong. DT has the highest negatives of any candidate by far and is the least liked by Dems of the GOP candidates.

    3. I wouldn’t consider polling at around 30-something percent “popular”. He has a plurality, sure, because the “establishment”/centrist/normal/whatever candidates are all splitting the rest of the field. He’s not really more popular than Rick Santorum was in 2012, and that’s saying a lot.

      1. Trump is getting the same kind of 24/7 coverage Obama got from the networks and MSM . He has gotten 8 times the coverage of anyone else. This gives him at least a 15% boost in polling. That has alot to do with his “popularity” . Many, myself included , think his supporters are either gullible or stupid because of all the Repub candidates , including Jeb, Trump is the most likely to keep the federal gravy train flowing and increase it (which is why he gets all the free press), taking a healthy swig himself.

  2. and Trumpster is popular among a shitload of blue collar democrats.

    1. Oh, Trump and Sanders also share the many of the same supporters In New Hampshire.

  3. Trump is strongest not in the metropolitan corners of America, where he’s spent most of his life.

    What conservative is popular in those areas?

      1. Yeah, I should have said what Republican. (Supply your own scare quotes.)

  4. Trump is doing well among the “he’s rich so he must be smart” crowd. But as I’ve said, Hillary got rich too – and got rich off of people just like Trump – why not support her? You know Trump wrote checks to Hillary but you don’t see her writing any checks to him, so who’s the smart one?

    1. Trump’s secret is that he doesn’t bullshit about being rich. There’s no routine like from Dubya, Romney or Hillary about being “average” people despite being very rich. I think people just got tired of these folks putting on plaid shirts and mom jeans and putting on an act and are now responding to Trump who pretty much says: “I’m filthy stinkin’ rich and fuck off if you don’t like it”.

  5. “Trump also did well with college grads”

    If you think about the PC whiney bullshit republican college students had to put up with for 4+ years, I can almost forgive them for latching on to the very un-pc con man.

    1. I’m with you JB, and honestly I don’t think you take it far enough.

      Just speaking personally, I’m white and grew up in the 90s, and went to high school and college in the 2000s, and I’ve become so tired of constantly being reminded I’m a bad person for being born a while male. I believe there are a lot of younger people in my age cohort that aren’t proggies that are tired of apologizing for someone else’s culture war too.

      Trump drives me crazy on some issues like eminent domain but I’d gladly pull the lever to push back on PC bs culture. Also it will be nice to finally show the republican establishment that their base actually matters.

      1. Trump drives me crazy on some issues like eminent domain but I’d gladly pull the lever to push back on PC bs culture.

        I’d like you to think hard and answer for me why, specifically, you think that supporting Trump would accomplish this in any way.

        1. Because Trump *has* pushed back against the PC thought police. And he’s still here.

          1. Because Trump *has* pushed back against the PC thought police. And he’s still here.

            I agree completely that Trump totally supports Donald Trump’s right to express himself in any way he wishes. I’m more curious as to why you think he would extend that to anyone else.

          2. No he hasn’t.

        2. “I’d gladly pull the lever to push back on PC bs culture”

          Yeah, that’s not really how things work.

      2. ” I’d gladly pull the lever to push back on PC bs culture. ”

        And clearly nothing will hurt the internet SJW crowd than making all their ridiculous assertions about their enemies look COMPLETELY VINDICATED.

        1. if it makes a few of them actually kill themselves or make a run for your country (because they’d never run to Mexico) it would be worth it.

    2. If you think about the PC whiney bullshit

      Trump allows people to vicariously tell the thought police to go fuck themselves, and win. That’s at least half his appeal.

      1. But his supporters don’t even have thoughts to police. They are too dumb to even understand what they’re “fighting”.

        1. you didn’t read this article did you?

            1. Yeah, I’m the same as John. Except for you know fucking everything.

              1. Yeah, I’m the same as John. Except for you know fucking everything.

                John’s more well-read than you are. As far as temperament is concerned you’re exactly the same.

          1. I read it from top to bottom. Is there anything you saw that I didn’t? Care to share?

      2. It’s seductive, no doubt. I was like, yeah, he called Cruz a pussy. Then I realized he called him a pussy for not being enthusiastic enough about torturing people. Gulp!

        1. If he can call somebody pussy for not enthusing over torture, he’s broken the ice for much less unpopular anti-PC statements.

  6. For those who don’t know, every issue of Spy magazine is on Google Books.

    Trump was the fuel for this mag for nearly its entire run.

    A 1989 issue has a great article on Bohemian Grove, replete with a detailed map of the compound!

  7. May not necessarily be poor or dumb, but definitely white.

    1. Nah, he seems to have a good share of GOP minority supporters as well.

      1. White hispanics! White blacks!

      2. This is true, but that’s a pretty small segment of the Republican party, and minority communities in the US.

        Also, while the poll Reason posted earlier showed Trump leading among Latino Republicans, others have shown him getting far less support from them compared to white Republicans, and at least one showed Rubio leading him among that demographic.

        1. Of course, I’m not arguing to the contrary.

          1. Just my own thinking here, but I could see Trump getting a larger share of the black vote than his Republican rivals, especially if it came to him vs Sanders. His obnoxiousness has a certain charm to it.

            1. I don’t know if it’s likely, but I think it’s possible, if only because the black vote is usually so heavily Democratic that you can have 85-90% of the community fervently hate you and still do better than the average GOP candidate as long as the other 10-15% vote for you.

              1. Exactly. Being hated is better than being unknown.

            2. I could see Trump getting a larger share of the black vote

              I can see a lot of blacks supporting his anti immigration policies.

              1. I’m pretty sure alot of them do. I’ve seen YouTube videos of black ladies who support Trump

    2. Also I posted 2 hot Latina pics in that comment section.

      1. And I forgot to thank you for that. You’re a good man, indeed.

        1. You are more than welcome friend.

    3. keep telling yourself that Alice. you’re usually wrong on facts which is why you’re usually wrong on conclusions.

      1. She was in fine form with her facts in the fabulous Cuba thread last night.

        Not.

        1. Pretty sure Alice Bowie is a man. The name is from Cheech and Chong’s band name in Up in Smoke. I’m actually a little surprised I’ve never seen anyone here pick up on that.

          All of youse guyz aging stoner credentials are officially revoked!

          1. “Pretty sure Alice Bowie is a man.”

            Alice has made this claim.

            1. Perhaps male would be a more accurate description. 😉

      1. Alice Bowie’s Law

      2. I would take a WND poll with a massive grain of salt. Also, comparing primary voters isn’t really fair, because there are way more black Democrats than black Republicans.

        In Gallup polling, Trump has a -48 favorability rating among black people, the worst of any GOP candidate.

        http://www.gallup.com/poll/184…..icans.aspx

        Other polls also poke holes in that narrative.

        http://irregulartimes.com/2015…..y-support/

        1. I would take a WND poll with a massive grain of salt.

          Probably a good idea, although following that up with a link to a batshit nutty left wing mirror of WND whose most recent posting begins with:

          Five years ago, Rick Snyder, the Republican Governor of Michigan, decided that the city of Flint couldn’t handle democracy any more. So, he declared that the people of Flint would no longer elect their own government. Snyder imposed a local dictator, an Emergency Manager that he appointed himself, to rule over the people of Flint. Two years ago, in the name of fiscal conservatism, Snyder’s Emergency Manager decreed that the people of Flint would start drinking water out of the polluted Flint River.

          Probably doesn’t do your credibility any favors.

          1. Calidissident has no credibility.

            6+ month old polls on attitudes towards Trump aren’t worth shit. He’s totally flipped his favorable/unfavorable to the upside since his campaign launch.

            1. SIV, coming from you, I take that as a compliment.

              Trump has improved his favorability among Republicans since announcing, but there is no indication that there’s been such a switch among the general electorate. The two links below include data from last month. There has been no reversal outside of GOP primary voters.

              http://tinyurl.com/hswwpgv
              http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea…..on-voters/

              1. “Republican primary voters” are shaping up to be a much larger chunk of the general electorate:

                http://www.npr.org/2016/02/10/…..ratic-side

                1. Still a minuscule. Trump is still unelectable.

                  You are one the last people who should be talking about credibility.

                2. They still aren’t gonna be the majority. You can’t just pretend that his consistently horrible numbers among Independents and Democrats aren’t relevant. Increased GOP turnout doesn’t really have anything to do with your assertion that Trump’s favorability among blacks and Hispanics, in general, has flipped since he announced. There is no evidence to support that.

                  1. SIV not care about facts. SIV lie all day long.

                  2. Trump won an equal percentage of Republicans and Independents in New Hampshire, 35% IIRC.
                    The most amusing piece of exit poll data was that he tied Kasich among voters who support amnesty with a path to citizenship for illegals.

                    I was just reading through all the wikipedia Trump stuff and learned that his grandfather was a regular piece of “libertarian” capitalist Americana. German immigrant who built hotel restaurant brothels in NW NA mining boomtowns.

                    short and well worth the read
                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Trump

                    1. Cool story bro. Cali’s point-that Trump’s numbers amongst indies is horrible-still stands. How the people in the NH primary voted really doesn’t change that.

                    2. All he does is throw out random talking points with no sense of a coherent argument. When each one gets disproved he brings up a new one that doesn’t refute the counterargument. The funny thing is he always criticizes Reason for supposedly carrying water for establishment pols like Jeb and Hillary, but he cheerleads for Trump way, way more than any of the Reason writers praise either of them.

          2. I came across the site through Google, didn’t read anything aside from the one article about Trump’s poll numbers, and only linked it because it has links to different polls. WND was actually involved in the poll cited on their website, the site I linked to wasn’t involved in any of those. Complete false equivalence.

            1. SurveyUSA conducted the poll.

              1. SurveyUSA did the poll where Trump got 25% of the black vote vs. Clinton (which is disputed by other polls of that matchup btw). That’s not the poll I’m talking about. The poll I’m talking about is one by WND/Clout about the GOP primary. Read Gilmore’s link.

            2. I came across the site through Google

              Me too, after the 4 pages of results from mainstream news outlets that preceded it.

              Complete false equivalence.

              Or would be if the equivalence I was drawing was about the respective polling methodologies of the websites in question (WND paid for the poll, but didn’t conduct it). My point was more about dismissing analysis based on the source rather than the analysis itself. I don’t begrudge you the occasional ad hominem, because sometimes a source is just so unreliable or biased that it serves as a convenient shorthand, but you have to be careful about your own sources once you’ve employed it.

              Had I bothered even taking a cursory look at the links GILMORE posted, I probably would have just pointed out that the SurveyUSA poll from the first link shows Trump getting 25% of the black vote in a heads-up match with Clinton and 26% in a heads-up match with Sanders, compared to Romney’s 7% and Bush’s 11%. SurveyUSA doesn’t seem to have the same bias or reliability issues, and those numbers still don’t comport with Trump’s negatives.

              Ironically enough though, I actually agree with you – I’d be stupefied if Trump actually pulled those kind of numbers in reality against either Clinton or Sanders.

              1. I searched “Donald Trump favorability blacks” and it showed up on Page 1

                Polls can be easily twisted to support an agenda, so I don’t think it’s unfair to question the motivation of an organization pushing it, at least if it’s not backed up by other polls.

                Regarding the SurveyUSA poll, I do admit it is interesting, but it still doesn’t support Gilmore’s assertion that Trump is more popular among black people than Sanders is, and there are multiple other polls out there that show him getting nowhere near that kind of support from blacks against Clinton.

                1. ” it still doesn’t support Gilmore’s assertion that Trump is more popular among black people than Sanders is”

                  Sanders gets very low support from african americans. 10-15% or so of Black Democrats. Polls in November show he’s barely moved the needle at all since the summer. There may be some more-recent improvements, but its still ridiculously poor for a contest where there are only 2 Dem choices.

                  Naturally, given that 70-80% of blacks vote democrat…. that’s still a far higher # of voters than trump would get even if he got 100% of the black GOP vote. When they say he’s getting “25%” of the black vote, that’s basically claiming he gets ALL of them that vote GOP. Which is obviously a stretch.

                  But… you could cut the quoted # down to something more reasonable = like “8-10%”… and that would still be miles better than Sanders.. (8% of the total is closer to 30-40% of black gop-voters, compared to Bern’s 12-15% of black dems). its not really a controversial claim.

                  Regardless… given that the next batch of southern primaries is coming up, they’ll be plenty of evidence of whether there’s any truth to his appeal among black voters.

                  1. There’s such a vast disparity between the size of the black Democratic and black Republican communities that I don’t think it matters. Also, even though most black Dems support Clinton over Sanders, the vast majority would still vote for Sanders over Trump in a general election, which is what would ultimately matter.

                    1. “” I don’t think it matters.””

                      You just spent a lot of time trying to dispute a point you now think doesn’t matter.

                      ” Also, even though most black Dems support Clinton over Sanders, the vast majority would still vote for Sanders over Trump in a general election, which is what would ultimately matter. “

                      lol

                      Sanders failure to appeal to a higher share of blacks (and hispanics) is exactly why he will lose to hillary. So your hypothetical is meaningless rather than being ‘what ultimately matters’.

                      and if trump eventually wins the GOP nomination, any ‘above average appeal’ among black voters could be v/ significant. And “above average” is more than 15% or so.

        2. “I would take a WND poll with a massive grain of salt.”

          Here’s the actual survey. It wasn’t done by WND. It was the same-old call-center based polling org that everyone (including Gallup) uses.

          I am the first to argue that most of this polling data is bullshit. (i spent years contracting it/analysing it myself on behalf of a variety of companies)

          That said, your quoted ‘negatives’ aren’t particularly significant either. When they say things like =

          “a poll of registered Latino voters in battleground states, only 15 percent expressed support for Donald Trump.”

          That’s pretty misleading. only 30% or so of hispanics even vote republican.

          A GOP candidate who is getting half the GOP latino vote is doing quite well

          When you say things like, “narrative”, you’re just reading the (often mistaken) conclusions the journalists are drawing from the data rather than actually reading the data yourself.

        3. In Gallup polling, Trump has a -48 favorability rating among black people, the worst of any GOP candidate.

          So, say it’s 68-20… when is the last time a Repub got 20% of the black vote?

  8. OT: I’m sure someone already mentioned this, but SCOTUS enjoined the EPA’s “Clean Power Plan” rules from taking effect until after a writ of petition for cert. is denied or after SCOTUS makes its decision.

    Apparently this is unusual because normally the injunction would lift after the D.C. Circuit makes its decision. Undoubtedly whoever loses will appeal to SCOTUS, and I doubt they won’t hear the case. So, hopefully this means the CPP won’t go into effect for a couple more years, and it may even be dead in the water depending on who becomes President.

    1. Grrr…that should be *petition for writ of cert.*

      1. I’ve never heard two people pronounce certiorari the same way.

    2. Yes, it’s been posted and articled. The CPP you might think is as bad an EPA over-reach as you can imagine, but they went even further with the little “banning modifications to off-road vehicles under their powers to regulate on-road vehicles” they tried sneaking into an unrelated ream of regulations on big truck fuel efficiency standards. Just the latest two exhibits for why the Supremes need to listen to Clarence Thomas and revisit the whole idea of “deference” to the executive branch agencies. They’re totally out of control, the President uses them to push his agenda outside of the control of Congress and Congress refuses to do their job and threaten to cut their funding when they go too far. It’s kinda silly to look so hard at who’s going to be our next president when it’s the bureaucrats who really run things in Washington and it doesn’t matter who’s nominally in charge.

      1. “We’re gonna need a bigger woodchipper”:

        Yes, it’s been posted and articled.

        I haven’t read a decent piece on the EPA auto reg “clarification” anywhere yet. Surprisingly, the best I have seen was some posts on Gawker’s Jalopnik.

  9. “even as he scores yuge wins…”

    …among people who can’t spell huge…

    1. The derp is strong with this one

      1. ‘Too low to the ground, the good ones go right over your head…’

  10. “Why Do GOP Detractors Insist That Donald Trump Is Only Popular Among Dumb, Poor Whites?”

    Duh. Its the political Progressive-Stack. “Poor dumb whites” are the only group in America that you can still openly-express screaming bigotry against and be embraced as brilliant and insightful and a moral paragon for it.

    1. [insert “WHYCOME THERE AINT NO WHITE HISTORY MUNTH, WHERE MAH COUNTRY GONE”]

    2. Of those 3 variables, it’s not the poorness, or the whiteness…it’s the dumbness.

      “Poor dumb whites” are the only group in America that you can still openly-express screaming bigotry against and be embraced as brilliant and insightful and a moral paragon for it.

      -1 Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement

      1. I apologize = we should Never Forget the jews.

        1. You know who else ‘never forgot’?

          1. Quebec? Je me souviens.

          2. I just spent like 30 minutes looking for a far side cartoon I remember. Was going to post a link with the text “this guy?”, but I can’t find it. They’re was an elephant in a trench coat and fedora, standing in the shadows. He’s saying to this guy something like “Remember me, Mr. Fulmer? Kenya, 1980. When you shoot an elephant, Mr Fulmer, you should make sure he’s dead.”

                1. I am so old, I knew which cartoon you meant, immediately.

            1. Burma 1926 Mr Orwell

      2. Maybe I just associate with too many Jews, or not enough giant flaming assholes. But I’ve never found anti-Jewish bigotry to be too socially acceptable. I do think that the distinction can be made between Jew hate and Israel hate (a lot of which is also really irrational and spittle flecked).

        1. Someone must be blamed. I blame white people.

        2. ” I do think that the distinction can be made between Jew hate and Israel hate (a lot of which is also really irrational and spittle flecked”

          This is a good point.

          HM’s point about the BDS-movement is “Israel Hate” which is rampant among the proggy-left.

          Whereas the place i see the most actual “Jew hate” these days is among the alt-righters on the intertubes. I don’t know where the hell it comes from, but its definitely a thing. I first saw it at Taki’s mag and i thought it was some kind of sarcastic joke, but they just never fucking shut up about it.

          Which is weird – because your typical paleocons generally LOVES them the chosen people’s. At least in my reading, that is.

          1. because your typical paleocons generally LOVES them the chosen people’s. At least in my reading, that is.

            I’m not sure what you define paleocon as. I’ve always understood it to be the continuation of the Old Right, that is Patrick Buchanan and the gang.

            1. “I’m not sure what you define paleocon as. “

              Maybe i used the wrong term. I was thinking more of the bog-standard christian-conservatives who see the state of israel as a biblical necessity for the eventual return of christ, and consequently see the jews as the rightful swarthy caretakers of the sandbox

          2. Paleocons do NOT like The Chosen People or Catholics or coloreds or the like. The Religious Right =/= paleos.

            1. Idiot, you have no idea what you’re talking about

          3. Paleocons are where you’ll find “what could be called”-to-outright antisemitism on the right. Taki’s has nothing on Zero Hedge. The alt-right twitterers are pikers compared to Zero Hedge comments. Am-Ren’s Jared Taylor isn’t even slightly anti-semitic, nor is he anti-Asian. He seems to be a “racial-meritocrat” rather than a strict “white supremacist”.

            1. i guess i’d always thought “paleocon” to be more synonymous (as cytox suggested) with the Bible-Belt Christian Conservatives.

              which is funny, since i always get irritated with people misusing the term “neocon”. Apparently i never knew what its opposite # was.

    3. “Why Do GOP Detractors Insist That Donald Trump Is Only Popular Among Dumb, Poor Whites?”

      You gotta find a goat to scape and you sure don’t want to be looking in the mirror when you find him.

  11. It isn’t that Donald Trump represents the Republicans so much–it’s that he represents the opposite of the progressives.

    Donald Trump is the anti-Obama.

    People who are sick of Obama era PC crap like Obama, and to the extent that represents something serious within the Republican Party, yeah Donald Trump represents that.

    This having been said, two-thirds of registered Republicans vote for someone else when given the chance. You can’t simply ignore the fact that two-thirds of voting Republicans vote for someone else–other than Trump–and then claim that he represents the party.

    1. “People who are sick of Obama era PC crap like [Trump], and to the extent . . .”

      You knew what I meant!

      1. I first read that as “People are sick of Obama era PC crap like Obama.”

      2. it works either way

    2. it’s that he represents the opposite of the progressives

      He was attacked by the PC hordes, and is still standing. Americans have been waiting for that guy for a long time.

      1. +1

        To the extent that Republican voters are sick of walking around atheists, homosexuals, blacks, trangender, lesbians, Muslims, women, Latinos, millenials, and others, like they’re walking on egg shells, yeah, Donald Trump represents an end to that.

        He’s the anti-Obama like that.

      2. Really? Americans have been waiting for an incoherent moron and serial bankruptcy expert?

        1. Yeah, that’s exactly what he said.

          Actually, he said they’ve been waiting for someone who was immune to the PC hoards.

          How can you not understand what he wrote?

          1. They’ve been waiting for him so much that he has by far the highest negatives of any candidate running. Okey.

            1. along with those negatives, he has a plurality of support.

              1. SHUT UP AND ACCEPT THE CANADIAN EXPERTISE! HIS RIDING IS VERY REPRESENTATIVE OF AMERICA!!!!!!

                1. Excellent advice SS. Just wish this threading would work better.

              2. Of support amongst whom? Republicans? Maybe. He’d still get walloped in the general.

    3. he is absolutely not the “opposite” of progressives. the angle is much, much more acute. they just have different things that they wanna force you to do

      1. The only difference is in tone, not substance.

      2. He is the opposite of PC sensibilities.

        From what he says about Muslims to immigration to a whole host of other things, he says all the things progressives shame people for saying. In that way, he represents the opposite of the progressives to the people who support him.

        Why is this so hard to understand?

        1. It’s difficult to understand the derp.

          1. Perhaps if you were capable of thinking beyond MUH PRESHUS TURD WORLD LABOR you’d be able to understand.

  12. A few thoughts on this article.

    One. The only people in my area who support someone other than Trump for the GOP nomination are a relative few diehard Tea Party members. Our Tea Parties are pretty much split between Trump and Cruz, but I’d say 80% or more of my community support Trump for the nomination.

    Two. Everyone here is sick and tired of Washington DC. Trump and Carson are all you here about when people gather. Why? Because nobody wants to see another Bush, Cruz is creepy, and Rubio is as fake as one can get. When someone talks about Trump’s support for eminent domain, misogyny, or past support for Democrats, the response is almost always “Who cares, he isn’t one of ‘them’.” When someone says he’s just pretending not to be one of ‘them’, the answer is “well, he might not be one of ‘them’ at least there is a chance.”

    Three. People without high school degrees and who are concerned about migrant workers taking the jobs they so often depend upon are not Dumb Hicks. They are Americans who are often too proud to take government handouts and do not mind working hard, especially if they are building something with their own two hands. It also doesn’t take a PhD to figure out that bombing the shit out of a country and then inviting the ‘displaced’ to come live here (which means more government assistance for foreigners) is a terrible idea.

    So while Trump certainly has his shortcomings, he is highly favored in my area simply because “he is not one of them”.

      1. Drop-out rate != without high-school degree. You’re looking at a .gov site that doesn’t want to tell you the truth about their successes, they’re only looking at people who leave school early. Once you hit 18, finish 4 years of high-school without graduating and move on with your life, you’re not a drop-out. You just didn’t graduate.

          1. You’re reading the chart incorrectly. The 68.2 value is the number of 9th graders out of 100 that graduate high school in 4 years. If we were to read the chart your way, it would mean that only 38.6 percent of Americans go to college; that is obviously false.

      2. Fucken Asians.

      3. 88% of Americans 25 or over have a high school diploma, although it may be worth noting that a high school diploma is not exactly an educational superlative, and is hardly a guarantee that one is not a “dumb hick”.

    1. You need to get out of your community.

      “People without high school degrees and who are concerned about migrant workers taking the jobs they so often depend upon are not Dumb Hicks.”

      Yes they are. If you’re that unskilled and unprepared for competition, you are a stupid hick.

      “It also doesn’t take a PhD to figure out that bombing the shit out of a country and then inviting the ‘displaced’ to come live here (which means more government assistance for foreigners) is a terrible idea.”

      It’s working fine for Canada and worked fine for Somalian refugees in America. And it does not have to mean increased government assistance.

      1. worked fine for Somalian refugees in America.

        Yessiree!

          1. Lol

            I do like it better when you’re honest though.

            1. Well really, so what? This is what the FBI is for. This is a tiny little problem. Miniscule.

      2. And it does not have to mean increased government assistance.

        No way, no how.

        1. Cool story bro. Here, have an actual study aka ‘real evidence’.

          http://www.cato.org/publicatio…..ate-bigger

          There is no correlation between immigrant population and welfarism.

          1. But not the only evidence.

            1. Debunked by Cato: http://www.cato.org/blog/cente…..elfare-use

      3. Who the f&ck; are you?

        I know several people who didn’t go to college, but instead went on to learn trades (concrete, auto repair, construction, Electrical, plumbing, TV repair, computer programming, and the list goes on) and eventually started their own businesses. They now have a good deal of influence in our community.

        I myself quit college after my Junior year upon returning from Switzerland were most of my friends there were going into Apprenticeships (70% to this day). I had no problem getting a decent job and working my way to a very successful career in SAP consulting working and collaborating with a large number of brilliant people for the likes of Delloite & Touche, Lockheed, Raytheon, Coca Cola, Hewlett Packard, and the Centers for Disease Control.

        These unskilled jobs are not permanent situations, they are stepping stones to Skilled Labor.

        People who think you have to go to college to succeed are the f&cking; idiots.

  13. relatively dumb (read: relatively dumb and uneducated)

    They mean both, and more.

  14. “And he is crass, vulgar, and generally unthinking.”

    Why do you insist he’s unthinking? I mean, it very well may be true, but he could also just be damn clever and knows exactly what to say.

  15. Rethuglicans are all dumb poor people. They’re also all the 1% super wealthy elite who are oppressing the dumb poor people. I’m not sure how that works, just ask a prog, they can explain it.

    1. So Republicans are Jews?

      /sarc

      1. And Jews are about 30% of America.

  16. And he is crass, vulgar, and generally unthinking

    Unthinking? Please explain this one, Nick. Are you inside the Donald’s head? I wouldn’t agree at all that he’s unthinking. Is everyone unthinking who doesn’t agree with you or say the things that you would say? Fluff. Trump is thinking all right. He’s somehow managed to make billions, have his own reality TV show which was wildly popular and now he’s kicking the asses of career politicians who have been thinking about running for president their entire lives, while he just pops up out of nowhere, says whatever he wants, and he’s fucking winning! I’m guessing that part of what he’s thinking is ‘wow, the voters are really stupid, they believe anything you tell them!’. You might not like what he’s thinking, but he’s definitely thinking something.

    1. ?nthinking” is definitely hyperbole. But the way Trump keeps repeating the same ridiculous things, I kind of get what Nick is saying. It’s not what you’d call a thoughtful campaign content-wise.

    2. Trump is thinking all right. He’s somehow managed to make billions

      Yeah, that was pretty smart of him to be born with a rich daddy.

      1. His daddy only loaned him a million. Donald lost billions all on his own.

      2. It’s been fun watching libertarians devolve into gibbering retards about inherited wealth since the ascendance of Trump.

        1. It’s been fun watching libertarians devolve into gibbering retards about inherited wealth since the ascendance of Trump.

          Am I saying something out of line with whatever your perception of my principles is? Do you see me advocating that the government swoop in and take his money away? It’s his supporters who act like the mere fact that he’s rich is a qualification to make him Lord and Master of All.

          1. There’s a certain hint that inheriting money somehow diminishes his accomplishments or reflects on his business acumen. Mind you, I’m not necessarily defending his track record, but I think it stands or falls on its own regardless of what he inherited (this same subject came up frequently on the left with regard to Romney). He’s made more than he started with, although as you can see from my link below, his wallet would have been fatter if he’d just loafed around as a trust fund kid. I think his biggest accomplishments are in branding, which is paying off in ways less easily valued objectively, like getting this far in the Republican presidential nomination process.

            1. There’s a certain hint that inheriting money somehow diminishes his accomplishments or reflects on his business acumen.

              Actually, if Trump had put the money he inherited and got through trust funds in an index fund, he’d be twice as rich as he is now.

              http://finance.yahoo.com/news/…..0366.html.

              That fact diminishes his “accomplishments”. If you could be worth twice as much simply doing nothing than running your business, you’re not a terribly accomplished businessman.

              1. … did you not read the rest of that post?

                He’s made more than he started with, although as you can see from my link below, his wallet would have been fatter if he’d just loafed around as a trust fund kid.

                It’s fair to judge Trump on his actual performance (although comparing rate of return of an index fund against the rate of return in his sector(s) of business may not be an apples to apples comparison, and might say more about his judgment as an investor than the actual management or performance of his specific businesses). But whether he begged, borrowed, stole or inherited his startup capital is irrelevant to the way he made it perform.

                1. PA’s original point was (or should have been) that Trump’s ability to ‘make billions’ really is bullshit. When you underperform an index, you’ve really *lost* billions. He inherited a bunch of money and sucked at investing it, so the idea that his making billions = Trump smart is nonsense.

                  1. He inherited a bunch of money and sucked at investing it, so the idea that his making billions = Trump smart is nonsense.

                    Right, because everyone who doesn’t make more money against an arbitrary index is a moron. By that measure, you’re dumber than Trump will ever be.

          2. Am I saying something out of line with whatever your perception of my principles is? Do you see me advocating that the government swoop in and take his money away?

            Tony’s always complaining about rich people who “were lucky enough to be born into wealth” so you should be able to see how the perception could be made.

      3. Lots of people born with rich daddies are broke now. I don’t think Trump is dumb or anything, liking him or not aside.

        1. He’s increased his wealth by 300% since 1987, but a market index fund would have beat that substantially. I don’t know how he stacks up among people in his particular sector though.

        2. “I don’t think Trump is dumb or anything”

          Well if his business performances are anything to judge then he’s no genius.

          1. He is a billionaire and you are a poor loser. He wins

  17. The dumbasses in Appalachia are dumbassier than the dumbasses in New York.

    1. I’m not so sure of that. I’ve known both of those clans and they are both dumbassier in their own special ways. To be honest, I’d rather hang out with the toothless hillbillies though.

      1. I grew up in rural Wisconsin. Half a century later, and living far, far away now, I’ve reconnected with some of my hick friends from high school on FB. The dudes that just hung around town after graduating make some of the more saner political posts. The dudes and gals that moved to the big city, IOW Minneapolis or Milwaukee, have embraced every ludicrous progressive talking point and lecture everyone about how backward they are.

      2. “I’d rather hang out with the toothless hillbillies though.”

        Me too. At least we could chat about guns.

          1. mtrueman|2.12.16 @ 9:11PM|#
            “and teeth”

            Envious, I see.

  18. I don’t believe “Scots-Irish” is a racial grouping. It is basically Irish and Scots who are not Catholic, but Protestant. It’s noteworthy that the author of the piece writes about gender, education and income all supporting Trump, but nothing about religion. If Catholics are lagging in their support of Trump, then this Scots-Irish business has some substance.

    1. Scotch-Irish are American descendants of the borderers.

      Not a brickbat

      1. Who’s ever heard of a Catholic hillbilly? I just checked Wikipedia. Ulster protestants. Otherwise known as Orangemen in Britain and Canada. They are anything but Catholic. Any idea how much support there is for Trump amongst Catholics? If it’s less than Protestant support, there is something to the claim that Trump’s is popular among Scots-Irish.

        1. Oh, good! The imbecile trueman whingeing on about history, full of shit once more.
          Hey, trueman, let’s see the cite showing Ukrainians were ‘notorious sympathizers’.

          1. Good old Sevo. Reason’s Catholic Hillbilly.

            1. Good ol’ trueman; one of Reason’s lying pieces of shit.

            2. BTW, liar, got a cite on that claim yet? Or just one more gripe about how you’re called on your constant bullshit?
              C’mon, POS, let’s see that cite!

      2. Man that link is to a column that’s like, 6 years old and ask about white people.

  19. Here’s the thing that strikes me, Donald Trump’s popularity does seem to be amongst low-information voters. And contrary to popular opinion, low information voters tend to be present across demographic and socio-economic groupings.

  20. But among those with a college degree or more, Trump’s lead is much smaller. He has 21% of the voters in that group, compared with 19% for Carson, 13% for Rubio, 9% for Cruz and 6% for Bush.

    So IOW his support is still nowhere near ‘overwhelming’ amongst those who are educated. Nick’s article is written in a tone that the evidence does not match.

    1. If Trump does get destroyed in the general, hopefully the GOP will consider a better system of elections than plurality rules, like rank based voting.

      1. He will (if he gets there).

        You should read the earlier article Reason had about the GOP rule changes in response to Ron Paul. The Super Tuesday states are now hand out delegates in proportion to the vote they got rather than winner-take-all.

        You know what would be even better? Excluding the people completely. The GOP should just pick its candidate based on a very exclusive process that eliminates interference from the idiot masses. In Canada and other parliamentary systems it used to be that the caucus chose the party leader, and it was better that way.

  21. Maybe if people actually occasionally encountered parrhesia in the political class, they wouldn’t so easily confuse shameless nastiness for it.

  22. Survey says:

    Trump’s support comes disproportionally from independent voters (47 percent), those who characterize themselves as something other than conservative (47 percent) and those without a college education (49 percent). Nearly half of voters who say their top priority is national security choose Trump as well.

    Nick blew it again. I’m shocked.

  23. Nick, the only that sounds like an elitist here is you with your holier than thou bullshit. People weren’t basing their understanding of Trump’s demographics based on some sort of bias, there were polls saying as much. So tired of the smarmy tone of everything Reason writes about conservatives intent on highlighting every minute detail that has any bit of ideological daylight while simultaneously bending over backwards to find common ground with the statists. “We both think Marijuana should be legal! Let’s be friends!!” Meanwhile every good faith effort by Republicans to shrink the size and scope of government gets either a golf clap or a “yeah but …” I really don’t fucking get it. You don’t have to start donating to the NRCC, but fuck man, not sure why you’re intent on alienating people who agree with you 80% of the time if not more.

    1. People were saying Trump supporters were low-info toothless,hillbilly racist morons, despite polling data to the contrary*, as both a concerted effort at social pressure and a bunch of plain ol’ signalling that they’d never do such a thing.

      Trump has polled well across the entire demographic spectrum of potential Republican primary voters from campaign launch. If anything, he skews secular and moderate which is why he’s gonna kill in the blue-state, closed primary, winner-take-all-delegates primaries. He’s the nominee and the next POTUS unless the deep state can find themselves an Arthur Bremer.

    2. “why you’re intent on alienating people who agree with you 80% of the time if not more.”

      So they agree with us 80% of the time but act on it what? .0008% of the time? Republicans are given way too much credit for vague mealy mouthed support of libertarian principles while consistently acting in a way 180 degrees opposite of libertarian principles. I don’t care what you say. I care what you do and on net Republicans are moving us in the opposite direction of libertarianism.

    3. “We both think Marijuana should be legal!”

      Um, that’s not a statist position.

    4. The “Reason” is because a lot of “libertarians” are really crypto-Marxists. And a lot of honest “libertarians” lack the critical thinking skills to figure out that they are being played. I think a lot of the misunderstanding boils down to a lack of appreciating for the MORAL FOUNDATION OF LIBERTY!!! Without a moral foundation there ain’t no “Reason” to believe in liberty. Without morals, there is only power, and if there is only power then non-aggression principles and property rights and minding our own business are nothing but BS and a scam.

      1. Let me guess where you fit into the universe:

        Moral is refusing sex before marriage

        Moral is locking other people’s children in cages for smoking marijuana while plying your own children with alcohol at church every Sunday as a path to salvation.

        Moral is recognizing baggy pants indicate the end of days but the Sound of Music is the best film ever made.

        And as you said we really can’t have liberty unless we have morality on these issues. In other words we can only be free if we live our life exactly as you wish us to.

        Assuming all of this accurately states your views as I am betting they do.

        Fuck off you theocratic fascist.

        1. Your handle, rudehost, is quite apt.

          I specifically referred to moral principles such as non-aggression and property rights. You come back with a bunch of hooey about sex. Aren’t you the one who is obsessed with the sex?

          I submit that YOU and what you have expressed in your comment there are precisely the problem to which I was referring. YES, I admit, and a moralist, that I believe in sexual continence, but why does my belief that sexual conduct has serious moral implications put me in the category with statists who want the State to control our sexuality? Hhhmmm? Truth is, even a lot of Anarcho-Capitalists concede that sexual behavior will have limits based on private enforcement, as it were, so to speak. Do you think you’re going to have sex with my 13 year old daughter and get away with it? Especially with no corrupt State to protect you from me?

          Now, that said, isnt’ there a lot more to life than sex? Is there not a hell of a lot more to morality than sexuality? I think so, don’t you? Or are you so afraid of principled limits on your sexuality that you cannot in your mind allow for even the notion of “morality?”

  24. Great.

    Next step: admit that your version of ‘libertarianism’ isn’t popular, and the few who like it are overwhelmingly concentrated in one demographic group.

  25. Name calling and the hurling of insults are a tantrum not an argument.

  26. Don’t need Trump to prove that there are plenty of dumb, rich whites.

  27. A lot of the problem is idiots, imbeciles, nitwits, and morons who think that insulting Megyn Kelly is insulting “women.” I kind like Carly Fiorina, I don’t blame her for the fiascos at HP more than I blame the board of directors, but insulting her is also not insulting “women.” It is insulting an individual.
    I agree with those who are sick and tired of the politically correct posturing about people of color, gender, and sexual disorientation. So in that sense and for that reason I love it when Trump insults “women;” mostly because dipshits insist on characterizing it as such.

  28. Trump will be the next President and liberals, conservatives and libertarians better get used to it. It will good for everyone so you should not be too upset unless you dislike peace and prosperity which it seems most Dems and GOP do.

  29. you guys are a bunch of snobbish assholes. No wonder everyone hates libertarians. Trump 2016 bitchez

  30. The technology is so developed that we can watch videos, live streaming, TV serials and any of our missed programs within our mobiles and PCs. Showbox
    All we need is a mobile or PC with a very good internet connection. There are many applications by which we can enjoy videos, our missed programs, live streaming etc.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.