U.S. Women Won't Let Trump Off the Hook for His Comments, and the Polls Show It

U.S. women are indicating that even if men's support for Trump is steady, they may spike the election out of his reach.

Poll after poll shows a widening of the electoral gender-gap in the less than a week since Donald Trump's 2005 boasts about groping women were unearthed and subsequently splashed non-stop across cable news, including during the second presidential debate last Sunday. U.S. women across the country are indicating that no matter if men's support for Trump is steady, female voters could spike the election out of his reach.

Nate Silver posted a roundup of recent polls last night. In a dozen national polls conducted since the start of October, Hillary Clinton leads by an average of 15 percentage points with women and Donald Trump leads by an average of 5 percentage points among men.

Clinton's lead among women is consistent throughout the polls, ranging from a relatively small 6 percentage points in one to a 33 percentage point lead among women in the most recent poll from the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) and The Atlantic (in the same poll, Clinton trailed Trump by 11 points with men). Clinton also led among men in three of the national national polls, by a range of 2 to 5 percentage points. Trump led among men in nine of the 12 polls, by margins ranging from 2 to 14 percentage points.

"It seems fair to say that, if Trump loses the election, it will be because women voted against him," Silver concluded.

I took a look at how men and women split their votes four years ago, according to polls conducted in November 2012. On average, Mitt Romney led President Obama by 7 percentage points among men, about the same as Trump's 5-point lead among men now. But Romney held his own among women, losing them by 8 points, whereas they're going against Trump by 15 points. That's the difference between a close election — as you'll remember, those national polls in late 2012 showed the race neck-and-neck3 — and one that's starting to look like a blowout.

Silver cautions that "there isn't yet enough data from after Sunday night's debate to really gauge its impact." And "for that matter, the polls may not yet have fully caught up to the effects of the release on Friday of the 2005 videotape."

That also means they haven't caught up to newly unearthed (or re-media blitzed) allegations of the Republican presidential nominee acting in gross and predatory ways toward women. Trump has recently been accused of walking in on Miss Teen USA pageant contestants while they were changing and kissing an '80s Miss USA contestant directly on the lips upon meeting her. Jill Harth, who accused Trump of attempted rape in 1997, has also been back in the spotlight, along with the thousands of lawsuits alleging sexual harassment and sex-based discrimination against Trump's company.

Evangelical women, including New York Times-bestselling religious author Beth Moore, have been showing signs of turning against Trump recently. And on Tuesday night, the president of the Iowa Federation of Republican Women resigned, stating that she "cannot support Donald J. Trump for president, nor can I advocate for his election."

In a new interview, Bill O'Reilly told Republican nominee he was behind with women. Trump's response? "I'm not sure I believe that."

Comments

[Rhywun]

If you think men and women are at each other's throats now, wait until Hillary becomes president.

[Free Society]

"A car in every driveway, a chicken in every pot and a hand grabbing every pussy!" *crowd cheers*

[Rhywun]

Every husband that voted for Trump is going to be sleeping on the couch for the next eight years. The baby bust will be significant.

[A Cynic's Guide to Zen]

Don't worry. Plenty of Syrians looking for green cards and eager to perpetuate their religion through their progeny heading our way. There's got to be a couple husband material gents in that gaggle.

[Hugh Akston]

This is high in the running for the worst subthread in H&R history.

[RBS]

I don't know, it hasn't gotten Tulpical.

[Free Society]

Hugh is Tulpa. It is known.

[Hugh Akston]

See, if I admit to being Tulpa, that would prove that I'm not Tulpa.

[Free Society]

Or so Tulpa would have us believe...

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

I'm not even in it yet! Oh wait, now I'm in it. Ok, now this is too meta for me.

[Chipper Morning Wood]

There is a great deal of stupid in this thread, Hugh. I am out.

[Free Society]

Between you and Hugh, the thread is unbearable.

[Rhywun]

Thanksgiving with the in-laws... now with more bomb making and rifle training.

[A Cynic's Guide to Zen]

Now with affordable AND customize-able MANDATORY religious headwear! *Stain resistant, blood washes right out!*

[waffles]

Hillary could do for gender relations what Obama has done for race relations!

[Hank Phillips]

At least the GO Pee won't be pussy-grabbing as part of their Lebensborn fetus-forfeiture programs. It's a shame the LP lacks a pro-choice plank. I can remember when the party ran the first female candidate and was UNEQUIVOCALLY pro-choice.

[MarkLastname]

Hillary will do for gender what Obama did for race. Yay!

[plusafdotcom]

Are there that many stupid, hypocritical women who get all pissed off about Trump's pussy-grabbing talk and don't give a shit about Slick Willie Clinton's sexual escapades???

Give me a break!

[chemjeff]

At this point Trump will have to earn women's support by grabbing one pussy at a time.

[Zombie Jimbo]

Should've never let women vote.

[Free Society]

Well they have made the world a more lefty place. I'm sure some people think that's a good thing.

[AlexInCT]

And if they don't they will be beaten into compliance...

[waffles]

Yes, people who think correctly think it's a good thing.

[Idle Hands]

I too hold them responsible for criminalizeing prostitution, mind-altering substances and Ass Sex.

[A Cynic's Guide to Zen]

Here's my issue. The vote was originally only for wealthy white landowners. Then when military necessity demanded a draft, it was given to all Men of age in recognition of the involuntariness of the draft.

In my view, make women draft-able or kill the draft.

[Calidissident]

The vote was not extended to all men because of the draft.

[A Cynic's Guide to Zen]

Source?

First: In order to become a U.S. citizen, you need to take the oath of allegiance, which requires you to agree to bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law. This is generally taken to refer to a draft, and since women have never been subject to a draft, it's understood to apply only to men.

Second: Failure to register is a felony, and a felony conviction strips people of their voter right in many states. Also, colloquially in lots of places it's referred to as "registering for the draft."

Third: Fun reading

Concession: Of course specifics varied state by state.

[Calidissident]

You're the one making the claim, why is the burden of proof on me to provide a source?

And just from a basic historical POV, a lot of restrictions on voting by men were removed before the Civil War (the first large-scale use of the draft). The biggest removal (in theory) after the Civil War was the 14th, which gave black men the right to vote and had nothing to do with the draft. Of course, in practice many laws in a lot of states restricted the right of black men (and women) to vote for about 100 years after (and the end of that also didn't have much to do with the draft). Some of these laws also impacted the right of some poor whites to vote for a long time as well.

[A frilly pink thing]

"You're the one making the claim"

Huh?

"The vote was not extended to all men because of the draft"

That sure looks like a claim there guy who claimed something them claimed he never claimed anything.

[Calidissident]

Ok, what I should have written is "you're the one who originally made a claim." He's still the one who first made a claim, and he provided no evidence for it. He's also asking me to prove something didn't happen, which can be difficult. Especially since there was no singular, unified moment when restrictions on male voting were eliminated. The claims I made in my post above are mostly basic historical knowledge. Do I need to provide a source that the 15th amendment (I wrote 14th above, though it's not totally unrelated) was primarily intended to end racial discrimination in voting?

[Hugh Akston]

I didn't take any oath of allegiance when I became a citizen, nor did I agree to bear arms on anybody's behalf.

[Bill Dalasio]

Then when military necessity demanded a draft, it was given to all Men of age in recognition of the involuntariness of the draft.

Not really. The standard had pretty much changed well before the Civil War. What changed the franchise was the opening of the frontier. If land is something that can just be gone out and grabbed, it's kind of weird to draw a distinction between a non-landowner on the East Coast and a settler on the frontier.

[Free Society]

I draw a distinction. Limiting suffrage to property owners is a good thing for property rights.

[Calidissident]

Is it really though? Is there no incentive in such a system for property owners to put in place policies that make it different for other people to become property owners (which would of course infringe on property rights)? That's also ignoring ways that rights could be harmed in other areas in such a system.

[Calidissident]

*difficult, not different

[Free Society]

The benefit to property rights, however substantial or inconsequential it may be, would be greater than the benefits accrued from non-property owners voting. Certainly greater the affect of welfare dependents getting to vote on how much property to take away from owners to facilitate their poor life choices.

Property owners have a vested interest in their property and assuming that they vote in their own interest at least some of the time, it's a net plus or property rights. They're just not going to go about hobbling their ability to buy, sell and develop their property either. There's really no universe where non-property owners holding sway in the political system is better for property rights than if suffrage were limited to property owners.

Plus the fewer people that vote, the better. There's really no way around it.

[junyo]

Hear hear! Jolly good show!
- Lord Franswortygigglebottom

[Calidissident]

"The benefit to property rights, however substantial or inconsequential it may be, would be greater than the benefits accrued from non-property owners voting."

And how exactly do you prove this?

"Property owners have a vested interest in their property and assuming that they vote in their own interest at least some of the time, it's a net plus or property rights. They're just not going to go about hobbling their ability to buy, sell and develop their property either."

I don't buy that for a couple reasons. First off, "property owners" is an extremely broad category that includes anyone who owns a home to landlords who own apartment buildings to commercial property owners. It's nonsense to pretend that their interests all align (and seriously, you find it incomprehensible that property owners might want restrictions on development? Are NIMBYs all renters?). Secondly, they can implement laws that restrict the freedom of the rest of the population, with minimal impact to themselves. The easier they make it to own property, the easier it is to vote, and the less political power they have.

"There's really no universe where non-property owners holding sway in the political system is better for property rights than if suffrage were limited to property owners."

Clearly the antebellum South was far better off restricting voting rights to property owners. I can't think of any way it might have been more free by expanding voting rights.

[Free Society]

And how exactly do you prove this?

Logic with a dash of deductive reasoning. It's a binary option. Would limiting suffrage to property owners be better or worse for the preservation of property rights? If you say worse, you'd need to do some mental gymnastics and introduce some strange non-factuals into the thought experiment.

It's nonsense to pretend that their interests all align

Regarding the rights of property owners to buy, sell and develop their properties, there would be some broad consensus in certain areas. That's not far fetched, because back in ye olden times when property owner suffrage was a thing, that's what we saw.

The easier they make it to own property, the easier it is to vote, and the less political power they have.

This makes no sense. If they made it harder to own property, it would directly harm them. If the available pool of potential buyers of your property goes down, in all likelihood the value of your property would go down with it. It would be limiting their own ability to utilize their own property or trade it for other goods and services.

Clearly the antebellum South was far better off restricting voting rights to property owners. I can't think of any way it might have been more free by expanding voting rights.

I already know that you're a progressive. You don't have to bludgeon me with their sophistry to prove it.

[Calidissident]

"Logic with a dash of deductive reasoning."

I don't think such a thing can be proven through logic or deductive reasoning alone (I have a gripe on this with the Austrian school, though I do respect many of them, particularly von Mises and Hayek). Also, the logic assumes property owners are concerned with the property rights broadly, and not the rights they want to exercise themselves (and that non-property owners aren't). It's like assuming religious people will support religious freedom broadly. On that note, this whole discussion ignores the fact that there are other relevant freedoms than property rights that are affected by voting.

"Regarding the rights of property owners to buy, sell and develop their properties, there would be some broad consensus in certain areas. That's not far fetched, because back in ye olden times when property owner suffrage was a thing, that's what we saw."

"Certain areas" is quite the weasel phrase. If you really want to argue that respect for property rights was awesome (even compared to today) in ye olden times then go ahead, but I think there's a lot of empirical proof to the contrary.

[Calidissident]

"If they made it harder to own property, it would directly harm them. If the available pool of potential buyers of your property goes down, in all likelihood the value of your property would go down with it. It would be limiting their own ability to utilize their own property or trade it for other goods and services."

There's ways of mitigating that though. You can offset price reduction from reduced demand through limiting supply, you can invent legal schemes that make it difficult for others to formally acquire ownership while the owner still profits from arrangements other than outright selling, etc. There are countless examples of this in history.
"I already know that you're a progressive. You don't have to bludgeon me with their sophistry to prove it."

An actual progressive who applied the same standards of purity to their ideology that you apply to yours would find me to be a radical right-wing small-government extremist, so that doesn't mean much coming from you.

And how is my example sophistry? You literally said there's "no universe where non-property owners holding sway in the political system is better for property rights than if suffrage were limited to property owners." I'm providing you with an example of such a "universe" from real-life history. Either acknowledge you were wrong, or argue that property rights in the South back then were better protected by limiting voting to property owners, as was common practice. What's the third option you see here?

[Free Society]

And how is my example sophistry?

The sophistry here is the rather obvious implication of picking the antebellum south as your example, to somehow connect limited suffrage with slavery. That is the work of a true sophist, probably one with a democracy fetish to boot.

[Calidissident]

"The sophistry here is the rather obvious implication of picking the antebellum south as your example, to somehow connect limited suffrage with slavery."

The antebellum south is far from the only example I could give, it's just a really obvious, well-known one to an American audience. Also, I wasn't equating limited suffrage with slavery, I was pointing out an example where limited suffrage helped cause or perpetuate very negative outcomes - in this case, mass slavery. There's a reason they didn't let slaves vote. That doesn't mean slavery can't exist in a society with universal suffrage, but it is harder to have a situation where as much as 60% of the population of a state is enslaved when all those people have the right to vote. You're just butthurt because you know the example I gave directly refutes your statement (and for the record, you are still yet to give a yes or no answer to the question of whether or not extending suffrage to non-property owners in the antebellum South would have been better for property rights - which is literally just me taking your exact statement and asking if it applies it to a society that has existed in the real world), so you dismiss it as sophistry.

[Hank Phillips]

Conservatives with True Faith? can teleport back to before the 19th Amendment by diving off a tall building while reciting the Lawerd's Prayer. It's guaranteed to work better'n The Rapture. Plus you get to sneer at all those suckers you Left Behind!

[The Laissez-Ferret]

Some who, I assume...are good people.

[Free Society]

Alternate Headline: U.S. Women Won't Let Go of Trump's Pussy

[Idle Hands]

Obligatory sexist comment:

[GILMORE?]

They're just playing hard to get. They know they want it.

[Red Rocks Dickin Bimbos]

I wonder what the Venn diagram is on the number of people who grooved to that song and those who thought Trump's comments were inexcusably sexist.

[grrizzly]

Too bad Trump isn't a Democrat, then the us women would be shopping for knee pads.

[AlexInCT]

That was his real crime I think. That he is a boor or a clown is incidental.

[Hank Phillips]

Wrong. Pussy-grabbing is in Subsection 12, Clause 22, subpart 5, item 9 of the 2016 GO-Pee Platform, right after "warriors for the babies" and before "forcing Jezebel to give down"... Trump is a reality teevee actor delivering his lines off the script.

[Fist of Etiquette]

BREAKING NEWS: Lady Voters Vote for Lady Candidate So Long as The View Tells Them It's Okay

[A Cynic's Guide to Zen]

The View calling Bill's rape accusers tramps the other day was a chucklefest, to be sure.

[DOOMco]

Principals.

[B.P.]

For the second morning in a row, I was treated to news outlets interviewing professional athletes about the meaning of the term "locker room talk." And these were straight, serious news stories.

[tarran]

See how Trump has degraded the presidential race? HRC wants it to be about her serious policy positions, but the press is biased against women...

[chemjeff]

Well, judging by their size, many Americans have never set foot in a locker room, so, it's not all that absurd of an idea...

[Rhywun]

The NYT had a story about how locker-room talk is all about philosophy or something.

[DOOMco]

Grabbing pussy isnt a philosophy?

[Augustine]

It's a lifestyle.

[Zeb]

I haven't been in a locker room since high school. I don't recall much crude talk about girls, to be honest.

But what difference does it make what people actually talk about in locker rooms? "Locker room talk" just means shit men (mostly) don't say when women are around.

[B.P.]

Being disingenuously literal is sometimes useful and fun. Like when an NBC fact check claims that Trump is peddling falsehoods by claiming that Clinton "acid washed" her e-mails because her operation did not actually use a caustic chemical to do the job.

[SugarFree]

Metaphors are unmutual.

[butt-head]

In my experience, locker room talk was pretty fucking gay.

[Hank Phillips]

Are those girls in the photos Trump gropees or Gore gropees?

[Crusty Juggler]

"What has two thumbs and grabs pussy? This guy."

[Citizen X]

You stay away from my cats, Crusty.

[Chipper Morning Wood]

Crusty would end up getting a paw right to the lips.

[Idle Hands]

Where has my country gone?

[Citizen X]

It is gone where the woodbine twineth.

[A Cynic's Guide to Zen]

I see a strong market for prostitution on the horizon. Dicks out for Harambe.

[Crusty Juggler]

Rowanne Brewer Lane should cut back a bit on the plastic surgery. Goodness gracious.

[Jerryskids]

Is that the seven-footer standing next to Trump? (I'm guessing seven-footer since she's several inches taller than the six-foot-eight Trump.)

[Hyperion]

Sorry, ENB, but this article is a net loss for you as a journalist. You should go back to the substantive articles that you usually write. Sigh...

[Chipper Morning Wood]

She is still cool in my book.

[Hyperion]

It was a criticism, not a condemnation.

[Idle Hands]

Trump has recently been accused of walking in on Miss Teen USA pageant contestants while they were changing

He was just checking to see if they needed anything.

and kissing an '80s Miss USA contestant directly on the lips upon meeting her.

That's how he greets everybody.

Jill Harth, who accused Trump of attempted rape in 1997, has also been back in the spotlight, along with the thousands of lawsuits alleging sexual harassment and sex-based discrimination against Trump's company.

Donald Trump is an alpha and a winner, beta's and losers "attempt" things he just does them.

[kinnath]

Winners go home and fuck the prom queen.

[generic Brand]

Maybe this has been said in these "hallowed" halls, but my main problem with these Trump scandals is that they're not new. The Democrats clearly had access to this a year ago, but sat on it until this point when Trump is already locked in as the Republican opponent.

Everyone wants to talk about how vile Trump is. It's nothing new, apparently, but the way this news is distributed you'd think these things happened a week ago. The American people are incapable of seeing that the two party system is manipulating them completely.

[BYODB]

Yeah, that was my first reaction as well. This was clearly Hillary's ace up her sleeve all along.

[Hyperion]

Maybe Reason should have a 'fluff' section where they stick stuff like this and everything from Dalmia. So we don't have to see it.

[A Cynic's Guide to Zen]

This makes no sense. Does ENB control your mouse or your thumb, Hyperion? Stopping by to vent about propriety is John-esque territory.

[Hyperion]

"Does ENB control your mouse or your thumb"

I don't think she's trying to, but you seem to be alluding to it. What are you, the blog police? ENB can handle her own response to criticism if she so chooses. She's one of the best writers here, in my opinion, and if I want to criticize her for writing a piece of fluff that's below her level, then I'm going to.

[A Cynic's Guide to Zen]

Your language:

So we don't have to see it.

How is the above language not asking for Reason to filter an article so your eyeballs never chance upon something from ENB or Dalmia? How is my comment alluding to anything other than what I typed, freund?

You choose what you respond to, and responding with "I wish this was filtered" is silly in my opinion. Don't click on it?

Let's also talk about the qualitative aspects of ENB's writing...

[Hyperion]

Oh shut up already.

[SugarFree]

Don't be an asshole, Zen. He's just asking for a safe space.

[Hugh Akston]

I'll just scroll down to see if you've made a similar comment in response to Matt's post about polls in Utah. I'm sure it's there. I mean it's exactly the same subject, so why wouldn't it be?

[Hyperion]

Go for it.

[Hugh Akston]

It's weird that I didn't see it. I even Ctrl+F'd for your name and found several comment from you, but nothing calling a post about presidential polls turning against Trump is a fluff story.

[Hyperion]

In the famous words of shreek, DOOP BLURP BOINK DERP!

[lafe.long]

Bill O'Reilly told Republican nominee he was behind with women.

Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, Know what I mean, squire?

[Crusty Juggler]

The Hit and Runners mostly agree (seriously, why the fuck isn't it universal, Trump-loving dorks), so let's play a game of What U.S. Women Will Let Every Other Politician Get Away With.

I will go first:

Unilaterally murder-droning American citizens and poor, brown people.

[John]

Having an affair with a 23 year old intern and letting your wife defend you by having the media portray her as a deranged stalker.

Starting an illegal war with Serbia to distract the media and the public from said affair.

Don't forget those.

No matter how much you hate Trump, for this statement to be the reason why you won't vote for him pretty much self identifies you as an idiot.

[Number 2]

Don't forget bombing an African pharmaceutical factory and calling it a chemical weapons facility.

[You Sound Like a Prog (MJG)]

Forcing women to see the doctor before they can get them baby pills.

[Rhywun]

Routinely telling "the help" to "fuck off"; referring to an opponent as a "fucking Jew bastard".

[Aloysious]

Video from 2008 Campaign Appears to Show Obama Flaunting Erection to Female Reporters

This is just fine as well.

[AlexInCT]

He and people with the (D) next to their name are exempt from the rules and regulations the SJW want the rest of us to live bye.

[Riven]

Being an inarticulate drooler.

[Gilbert Martin]

How about flat out lying to the relatives of those killed at the Benghazi embassy by claiming it was caused by a video and promising to punish it's creator?

[You Sound Like a Prog (MJG)]

Pfft, that's not a girl issue.

[Jackand Ace]

They haven't let the GOP off in the past, and they won't again.

This is not a new story, other than its the first time a GOP candidate for President has been shown to be offensive to women. It's been an issue in other elections. Let's not forget the GOP post mortem in 2012..."we need to reach out to Latinos, Blacks and women." Anything change in 4 years? Nope.

This isn't a Trump story. It's a GOP story. See how nearly 70% of Republicans still support Trump and barely 50% have good things to say about Ryan. Trump is the perfect distillation of all the outrage that has been peddled in right wing media for decades. And note the support he gets from Hannity, Coulter, Ingraham and so many more.

Trump's acceptance among the GOP faithful says it all. He's just giving them what they want. I guess including offensive comments about women.

[Jackand Ace]

Cue all the GOP and Trump apologists.

[John]

Cue Joe from Lowell to apologize for the Democrats. Remember, this is the same guy who ran off and hid when Obama got elected because he didn't have the balls to defend Obama. Now he skulks back in under a new name and pretends he didn't say shit like how Obama was going to stop waging wars and end Bush's counter terrorism policies.

[Citizen X]

Trust democracy, John!

[Jackand Ace]

Ah, your paranoid conspiracy theory of who I might be says it all...this Joe must have really leveled you since you can't forget him. Good for him. Seems I'm doing the same...stay with it!

[John]

Trump's acceptance among the GOP faithful says it all. He's just giving them what they want. I guess including offensive comments about women.

But Bill Clinton being beloved by the Democrats says nothing. And Obama still being beloved by the Democrats in spite of starting numerous wars and ordering the assassination of an American citizen and doing everything Democrats claimed to hate Bush for doing and even more says nothing

You are such a sad little man Joe. You really are.

[Jackand Ace]

Hey John, still hanging on my every word? Glad you're one of my peeps.

[John]

I have a weakness for kicking around and picking on idiots. I should be nicer to you but it is just too much fun to kick you around.

[Jackand Ace]

Great! Keep 'em coming!

[tarran]

John! Please!

It took Trump to teach joe the lesson that a history of sexual harassment and indecent assault indicates a person is unfit for the office of president. Please don't drive joe back in the burning barn of turning a blind eye to powerful people taking advantage of defenseless young women!

It doesn't matter how joe got to this point of moral growth. He's grown. Like the prodigal son, he should be welcomed, not scorned.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

+2 presidential kneepads.

[Ken Shultz]

"See how nearly 70% of Republicans still support Trump and barely 50% have good things to say about Ryan."

A lot of that is because of all the registered Democrats who call themselves Republicans during surveys but actually support Trump and hate the Democratic Party.

Trump won the primaries because of registered Democrats voting for Trump in open primary states.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/22.....aries.html

The fact is that social justice warriors and chronically offended feminists have driven white, blue collar workers out of the Democratic Party with their hate. If registered Democrats who haven't taken the time to change their registration yet are still clinging to Trump, that doesn't surprise me at all.

[Jackand Ace]

Some of the latest polls show Republicans supporting Trump to the tune of 85%. Are there Democrats who will vote for him? Of course, there always are Democrats who vote GOP. But that's not where he gets his support. The Hill had an article that said it could 20% of Democrats. And about 14% Republicans voting for Hillary, so that's a typical number for both.

Nope. It's a Republican phenomena. They nominated him, and they support him.

[Jackand Ace]

Link

http://thehill.com/homenews/ca.....poll-shows

[Jackand Ace]

Link

http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea.....candidate/

[Ken Shultz]

From your link:

"Here's an average of three live interview polls3 conducted right after each Republican nominee since 1980 wrapped up his primary by eliminating his last serious foe"

You're counting interview polls.

When you ask Trump voters whether they're Democrats or Republicans, they generally don't say "Democrat"--even if they're registered Democrats.

They're "Trump Democrats" in the same way that there were "Reagan Democrats".

Reagan Democrats were blue collar workers who were chased out of the Democratic Party by the equivalent of feminists, BLM types, gay rights activists, social justice warriors, illegal alien interests, and environmentalists. All of those groups demonize white blue collar workers--especially if they're Christians. Why would it be surprising to see such people flock to Donald Trump.

Donald Trump even has a Democrat economic outlook. Trump is to the left of Bill Clinton was on free trade, etc.

Anyway, because Donald Trump supporters tell phone interviewers that they're Republicans doesn't mean they're registered that way. You're counting Trump supporters as Republicans even though they're registered Democrats who probably voted for Obama, Kerry, Gore, and Bill Clinton before him. They're not Ronald Reagan supply siders. There's noting Republican about them. The Republican establishment opposed them. The Tea Party opposed them, too.

[Ken Shultz]

It's just that you think you can use Trump as a whipping boy for the Republican party now--so you're pretending all these Democrats that support him are actually Republicans somehow.

[mad.casual]

Nope. It's a Republican phenomena. They nominated him, and they support him.

So, by the numbers, Trump wins as 85% of the GOP and 20% of the Democrats vote for him while only 80% of Dems and 14% of republicans vote for her. Hillary is such a phenomenal politician that despite years in the political theater and, even when lying, cheating, and stealing, she can't beat Trump.

That or you've dramatically oversimplified the situation with your statistical analysis and the compounding variables are so overwhelming your factoids are meaningless.

[mad.casual]

*confounding variables*

Damned keyboard.

[Calidissident]

His poll is outdated, and one data point. Trump is not getting 20% of the Democratic vote and Clinton isn't getting 14% of the Republican vote for that matter.

[mad.casual]

Also, considers strict Hillary/Trump and plays fast and loose with 'registered' and 'likely' voters (and, as usual, ignores the intended actions vs. declared intentions disconnect).

[Calidissident]

Ken,

Stop repeating this claim. The proof you've provided for it does not support your conclusion. I've shown you time and time again that even in open primary states Democrats were less than 10% of the Republican electorate (often around 5%, which is a pretty typical level) and they didn't all vote for Trump. Trump did a lot better among registered Republicans in open primary states, and that was mostly because they were in geographically friendly territory (the Northeast and the South).

Also, even if the theory were true, at what point does party identification and voting habits become more important than registration? Lastly, if these numbers were really from huge numbers of Democrats becoming (self-identified, if not registered) Republicans why has there not been a large shift in the % of the population identifying as Democrat vs Republican? The Democrats still have the advantage, and it's similar to what it's been in most recent years.

[Ken Shultz]

"Stop repeating this claim. The proof you've provided for it does not support your conclusion."

I doubt you're in charge of what anybody can say or not say. I'm sure you're not in charge of me.

"I've shown you time and time again"

This happened in your mind.

"Also, even if the theory were true, at what point does party identification and voting habits become more important than registration?"

It's when their ideology hasn't changed.

When the Republican leadership fights and rejects Trump, that might mean he doesn't represent the party.

When Republican primary voters overwhelmingly reject him for someone else, chances are his ideology doesn't reflect the Republican Party base.

He's been rejected by the Republic establishment. He's been rejected by the Tea Party.

He's been rejected by base. He's been rejected by Tea Party voters in the primaries, and he was rejected by Republican establishment voters.

If the difference that put him over the top was basically the same demographic that supports the UAW and the AFL-CIO, then at that point, yeah, maybe he doesn't represent the Republican base or their leaders.

Sure, Republican voters will support him against Hillary. That's the one Republican thing he has going for him. He's running against Hillary Clinton.

[Ken Shultz]

From the CNBC link:

"In those open primaries, Trump has come out ahead in 13 out of 16 states. In states with closed primaries, Trump won only six out of 14 states. Overall, Trump has won closed states about half as often as he's won those open states."

Trump is a Democrat in all but name. He's actually running to the left of where Bill Clinton ran.

Because Trump split the Democrat vote in the primaries and brought them in to vote Republican doesn't tell us anything about the Republican party.

It tells us a lot about the Democrats.

I mean, you're not one of these people who imagines Hillary Clinton is somehow popular on her own, are you?

She hasn't registered more than a 50% favorable opinion rating in the Gallup poll since July of 2014 (Two-Thousand Fourteen).

Hillary's unfavorable opinion rating has been clocking in at over 50% since August of 2015--more than a year.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/161.....-news.aspx

That means a lot more than registered Republicans despise her. Hillary Clinton isn't genuinely popular with anyone.

[Jackand Ace]

If you read your article, you will note that they mention independents who voted for Trump (including those who consider them libertarian I am sure...maybe you) as well as new voters.

Tell you what...get me how many Democrar votes he actually got compared to Republican votes. You're in a fantasy if you think it's Democrats who got him the GOP nomination.

[Ken Shultz]

"In those open primaries, Trump has come out ahead in 13 out of 16 states. In states with closed primaries, Trump won only six out of 14 states. Overall, Trump has won closed states about half as often as he's won those open states."

The Democratic Party is bleeding white, middle class, blue collar voters like crazy--and those are the people who flocked to Turmp for three main reasons:

1) Anti-free trade
2) Anti-immigration
3) Anti social justice warrior

Trump Democrats think that trade with China has destroyed their standard of living, that immigrants took der jerbs, and they're sick of being demonized by the progressives who run the Democratic party for being homophobic because they're Christian, sexist because they're men, stupid because they don't believe in global warming, racist because they're white, and selfish for being middle class.

Go look the details up yourself.

I'm busy.

[Ken Shultz]

"They're sick of being demonized by the progressives who run the Democratic party for being homophobic because they're Christian, sexist because they're men, stupid because they don't believe in global warming, racist because they're white, and selfish for being middle class."

That's why they're clinging to Trump despite the recent revelations.

And these "rednecks" that you spit on as they try to change their world
are immune to your consultations.
They're quite aware of what they're going through.

[Jackand Ace]

And I might add that the primaries were months ago. There have been quite a few revelations about Trump since that I am sure will stop many independents and Democrats from voting for him. It's not keeping the GOO base from supporting him.

[Red Rocks Dickin Bimbos]

This is not a new story, other than its the first time a GOP candidate for President has been shown to be offensive to women.

It's not often you see a Democrat admit that the hysteria over Romney's "binders full of women" comment was disingenuous, bullshit posturing.

[Gilbert Martin]

So Trump can't be "let off the hook" for some comments he made but Hillary shouldn't be on the hook at all for enabling and defending her husband's actual sexual harassment of women (including paying off Paula Jones to the tune of $850 K).

That makes perfect sense.

[You Sound Like a Prog (MJG)]

Yes, you've summarized ENB's position perfectly.

[WTF]

Hell, there are credible accusations from the likes of Juanita Broadrrick and others that Bill has actually raped women, in addition to multiple sexual assaults, while Hillary ran campaigns to attack, smear, and threaten Bill's victims. Can American women really be so stupid and irrational that they think mere talk about how women would let rich and famous men grab their pussy is worse than attacking and smearing victims of actual sexual assault and rape and enabling such to continue by Bill? I refuse to believe it.

[Ayn Random Variation]

Megan Kelly has actually gone full TDS and has, on numerous occasions, argued that Juanita bdrk's rape claims are not credible. I think trump called her flat chested and that's why she's gone off the rails.

[R C Dean]

Believe it, WTF. Believe it.

I have had two conversations with smart, accomplished, professional women, about this, and that is exactly their take. Both of them. I was dumbfounded.

[BYODB]

Were the nurses RC? Because I don't trust their judgment as far as I can throw most of them. Spoiler alert, that ain't far.

[You Sound Like a Prog (MJG)]

Trump has recently been accused of walking in on Miss Teen USA pageant contestants while they were changing

Really? We're supposed to care about a perverted man walking in on private spaces reserved for women? Weak stuff.

[UnCivilServant]

Did Donald Identify as a woman at the time?

[SugarFree]

Well, he did put on a wig.

[RBS]

Is this shit over yet?

[UnCivilServant]

No, go back to sleep.

[Ken Shultz]

Donald Trump's sexual exploits are the Democratic party's clitoris.

[Elspeth Flashman]

q1. Why does anyone listen to Nate, he's unreliable. 2. Why does Trump pose with double thumbs-up? He looks like he's at his 7th birthday party getting cake and ice cream.

[Elizabeth Nolan Brown]

I lost a good half-hour looking through our photo-subscription service at pictures of Trump posing with that same double thumbs-up grin next to awkward-looking Miss USA & Miss Teen USA contestants. Good stuff

[Crusty Juggler]

The double thumbs-up posing gives me a chance to make a feeble "who has two thumbs" joke each time I see the photo, so there is that.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

This is what happens to the country when we let men have the vote.

[AlmightyJB]

Oh they SAY he's an ass but we'll see who they go home with come election night.

[Hyperion]

The threads from the past few days have convinced me that Hillary's upped her payment from 10 cents a post to 15 cents. Now the trolls are going to be able to afford some Natty Boh for the weekend instead of the white cans with BEER printed on them.

[DOOMco]

Mountain brew!!

[A Cynic's Guide to Zen]

Mountain Dew?

[DOOMco]

they sell it at Stewarts in NY. its amazing, i recommend 2 for breakfast.

[Ayn Random Variation]

Remember the powdered beer they used to sell? No, I never sunk that low. Colt 45 is as low as I've gone beer type wise.

[Possible Bot]

Women vote for free stuff and always have.

[Hugh Akston]

Do they also make broad, unsupportable generalizations about a huge group of diverse individuals?

[Careless]

Unsupportable? I guess it's unsupportable in that it's false that women have always voted.

[Hugh Akston]

Possibly unsupportable, certainly unsupported.

[The Late P Brooks]

We interrupt this program to bring you a rambling diatribe rife with sophistry and prevarication courtesy of the Propaganda Broadcasting Service.

The real threat to the opponents of the minimum wage posed by the fight for $15 isn't that it would raise wages for nearly half of Americans (although it would certainly do that). It is that it exposes trickle-down economics for what it truly is ? an intimidation tactic, a con job, a scam ? a rhetorical negotiating strategy that has been deftly used to pick the pockets of American workers for the past 40 years. The opponents of a $15 minimum wage don't oppose it, because they are afraid it will harm the economy. They are terrified that it will help the economy, and by so doing, demolish a lie that has rationalized a set of economic policies that have suppressed the wages of tens of millions of Americans for decades. A $15 minimum wage won't solve the enormous structural problems in the U.S. economy. But in lifting up our poorest workers and in opening the eyes of everyone else to the way in which they have been scammed, it would be a very good start.

Much tapdancing and fancy cape work, all in service to the cause of the Greater Good and the castigation of the Scrooge McDucks of the world.

SPOILER ALERT:
Nowhere will you see the words "marginal return".

[Hyperion]

Let Venezuela show us the way, comrades. Viva la revolucion! We don't gots no toilet paper, but it feelz good!

[John]

Nick Hanauer
Nick Hanauer is a Seattle-based entrepreneur, venture capitalist, philanthropist and author.

I don't think I would invest my money with this guy. Just a hunch I have.

[AlexInCT]

My bet is that he is some dude living in momma's basement using e-Bay to sell her stuff.

[KevinP]

He's also a gun-grabber, supporting all manner of gun control initiatives.

[BigW]

Good lord. Did they drink the entire vat of True Marxist Red flavored cool-aid to come up with that horseshit?

[Hank Phillips]

I liked the People's Temple Jim Jones Kool-Ade punch better. That cleared the kitchen of mystics AND a looter politician to boot!

[GILMORE?]

And by "trickle down economics", they mean "economics"

They don't teach kids any economics in HS anymore. Why bother, when every other teacher is insisting all that "supply and demand"stuff is lies?

Surely artificially raising the price of a thing will grow demand for it! Anyone who disagrees is a right-wing loon

[GILMORE?]

". unlike the simplified models in Econ 101 textbooks, real economies are messy and complex: technologies change, the Fed moves interest rates, oil prices fluctuate, the business cycle swings, a hurricane hits and so on. The challenge is to isolate the impact of the minimum wage from all of these other factors that might affect growth or employment. Through various sophisticated statistical techniques, researchers have attempted to separate the minimum wage signal from the economic noise, and while economists never agree on anything, they have produced a range of consistent results: from zero to zip to nada to a very small effect.""

Top people say so! Wages are complex; not like, say, carbon emissions, which will DEFINITELY be reduced by similar artificial cost increases.

[KDN]

researchers have attempted to separate the minimum wage signal from the economic noise, and while economists never agree on anything, they have produced a range of consistent results: from zero to zip to nada to a very small effect.""

This is completely, totally, utterly false. There was a substantial meta-analysis a few years back that showed the opposite to be true.

[GILMORE?]

The laws of supply and demand function in macro, micro, simple and complex environments.

The fact is that when they try and measure the "cost" of min wage, they look at only those directly affected (eg the 3% of wage earners); but they themselves acknowledge that it forces wage increases across the board. They never look at the impact it has on overall business expansion or capital spending

[Ayn Random Variation]

Economies are so complex that we should have a few lawyers and political science majors control it from wash DC.

[Hank Phillips]

Lawyers need lots of innocent kids whose parents want them released from jail and kept out of prison. So the more cops appealing wrongful homicide convictions for shooting some kid in the back over a hemp seed, the better. It's a matter of perspective. Bring on the asset-forfeiture too! When next you see a bad law, ask yourself who (not what) it serves...

[Rhywun]

it would raise wages for nearly half of Americans

And the price of everything they buy will miraculously stay the same. Seems legit.

[Gilbert Martin]

"it would raise wages for nearly half of Americans"

Except for the one's who get fired and whose wages go to zero.

[Hank Phillips]

Both parties want prohibition and asset-forfeiture laws. The more unemployed, the more dealers to distribute the confiscated dope for the police and politicians at a 400% markup over legal prices. THAT's economics after you delete that irritating modifier "willing" from the Law of Supply and Demand.

[John]

So there is a video of Obama showing off an erection to reporters on a plane in 2008. Reason of course won't take the link. But it is on drudge right now.

I am not sure what to even think of it. It is almost too weird to be offensive. Obama is just a strange cat.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

It was the reporter's selfie after Obama won.

[Hyperion]

Does Chris Matthews have a poster of that on his bedroom wall?

[Aloysious]

*clears throat, points up thread*

[John]

Sorry I missed it. And you are smart enough to know how to get the squirrels to take it. Isn't it more weird than anything else?

[Aloysious]

On a PC, using Chrome and reasonable.

CNN sat on it for eight years or so. Typical behavior on their part.

[tarran]

Over the weekend, I sat down and read Machiavelli's "The Prince". It was the first time I read it, and I found it very different from what I expected.

Even though he makes the point that he is writing to advice princes of principalities and ecplicitly excludes republics from the scope of his book, it's fascinating to consider how ruinously he would predict things turning out for HRC or Trump if they were to win the presidency.

Under his metrics, HRC is in far better shape than Trump, but both are at high risk for being overthrown by nobles plotting against them.

Essentially, they are not feared by the people, but hated. HTC is feared by the nobles, and Trump is not. They are buying the office through their liberality (what M. called "giving out free shit"), ensuring that they will exhaust their treasury and have nothing when they really need it, HRC is surrounded by a bodyguard of devoted advisors and listens to them, but ignores everyone outside this circle, which Machievelli felt was the best way to order things. Trump on the other hand is changeable and is not well advised, meaning he will be less able to adapt to changing circumstances.

My reading was that if Machievelli were to be asked how things would turn out, HRC would have a better chance of holding onto the throne than Trump. But, since the nobles and people both hate her, and the people don't fear her, the moment she runs out of free shit to give away, she will be overthrown.

[GILMORE?]

"", the moment she runs out of free shit to give away, she will be overthrown.""'

They've already run out.

[MetalBard]

Run out? Do you even economy bro? You just keep printing more, and more. Money literally grows on trees, you never run out. What could possibly go wrong?

[MetalBard]

Obama showing off his penis is perfectly acceptable cause racism or something....

Seriously people just hold your nose and vote Trump, this level of media and political corruption is unacceptable, don't reward it by handing them the presidency.

[BigW]

Yay!! Hillary will be President!! We're ....... screwed.

[The Late P Brooks]

Buried in the steaming pile, we find this:

How is this possible? How could self-respecting economists suggest that an increase in the minimum wage might encourage job growth and hiring? Well, first of all, there's what economist Michael Reich calls "income effect": People on the minimum wage tend to spend everything they earn. Increases in the minimum wage thus flow back into the economy (again, like the tide flowing upstream), generating increased demand, which in turn increases hiring and investment. It is a basic principle of capitalism that when workers have more money, businesses have more customers, and when businesses have more customers, they hire more workers. This income effect may not have left a large mark on the historical data, because historically, most minimum wage increases have been relatively small. But it is real and should be taken into account. And in an era of depressed demand and consumer spending, as we are now, higher wages are exactly what our economy needs.

"historically, most minimum wage increases have been relatively small"

Strangely, this point is unmentioned in relation to the claim prior increases have had a negligible, if not counterintuitively positive effect. Neither does he mention the relationship between statutory wages and those prevailing in the economy at large at the time of Minimum wage "adjustments".

[The Late P Brooks]

The "wealth effect" is no less an appeal to fairy dust than "trickle down".

[Ayn Random Variation]

White nights assemble!

[A Cynic's Guide to Zen]

White Terror reporting in!

[You Sound Like a Prog (MJG)]

Wait, is that a picture of flesh-and-blood humans, or a Madame Tussauds exhibit?

[Mickey Rat]

Trump's new campaign slogan:

"Grab the Country Again!"

[carol]

If women aren't going to vote for Trump because of an eleven year old conversation then they are dumber than I thought. Are women actually shocked that Trump has character issues? Really? And by what stretch of the imagination are Trump's character flaws any worse than those of Hillary? They both suck. And it isn't like they are neck and neck on the issues and character is being used as the tie breaker. I can think of a whole slew of things that Hillary absolutely will be terrible on and I can easily imagine that Trump might be bad on. Between the two of them I'll take my chances with Trump because I know Hillary is a disaster. And staying married to a serial rapist is a whole lot worse in my book than being a serial potty mouth and braggart.

[WTF]

Hillary didn't just stay married to a serial rapist, she enabled his behavior and ran a war room to attack and smear his victims. She has cavalierly caused the deaths of multiple people with her insane and destructive foreign policy as Sec State. She compromised national security and in so doing likely caused additional deaths so that she could hide her pay to play corruption between the State Depart and the Clinton Foundation slush fund. She is a vile sociopath, but women will prefer her because vagina? Really? Are these women trying to reinforce the stereotype of women acting on emotion and being irrational?

[carol]

Yes.

[waffles]

Russian Foreign Minister weighs in, calls us pussies.

[Hyperion]

Ok, if no one else is going to say it... FAKE SCANDALZ!!!

[The Late P Brooks]

The UN High Commissioner for something or other says a Trump Presidency will plunge the world into madness and despair.

So we've got that going for us.

[The Late P Brooks]

DJD?

Stenosis, they say, which is apparently a species of arthritis.

[The Late P Brooks]

Possibly, in part, the residual effects of football/lacrosse injuries from 40 years ago.

[The Late P Brooks]

Oops, wrong thread.

[Joe M]

Captain contest: "Smell my thumbs."

[Hank Phillips]

Elizabeth, have you ever read the 769-word antiabortion plank in the 36-000-word GO-Pee platform? It reads exactly like Mein Kampf, and why not? The morphing of the Prohibition Party into a Nationalsocialist behemoth left it with only the 1932 prohibition policies and the Christian Germany those policies engendered. The Republican party exists only to produce Hitlerjugend for a Crusade against the Children of Mohammed... in today's nuclear age. They are Their Brothers' Keepers, just as when Herbert Hoover gave speeches praising altruism and scorning dog-eat-dog laissez-faire policies. Trump is simply the actor who passed the audition and is reading that script!

[RogerN]

LOL... "Women won't forgive Trump for what he SAID". Yet... They say nothing about what Hillary has DONE to rape victims and what she has NOT done their rapist.

[Tucci78]

If the polls (overwhelmingly devised to push progtard propaganda) really supports genuine distaff support for Hitlery against Trump, skeeving at locker-room language "ickiness" while thought-blocking on Arkancide and the most horrendous corruption in American politics, then the vagina'd populace deserves what the Third-World rape-culture inundation will entail, "gun-free spaces" included.

[nailzer]

You wouldn't know women have a problem with Trump with all the "women for Trump" signs at the Lakeland Florida rally today.

[MichaelL]

The strange thing about the "talk" that was shown on the video is that my wife says there is plenty of that going on in women only circles, as well. Thing is, they are just peons. What they say does not matter, as long as they will not be running for president....(;-P.

[lukashik]

While coming to education, the technology has brought many advantages to students and as well as teachers. showbox For example, students can do their homework or assignment with ease and can complete it faster by using the Internet.