Do Trump's Groping, Clinton's Lying, & Johnson's Honesty Disqualify Them from the Presidency?

Podcast featuring Nick Gillespie and Katherine Mangu-Ward, with Bloomberg View's Eli Lake talking all that plus foreign policy.

"It's like we're testing the proposition that candidates themselves don't matter, that the only thing that matters is their party affiliation. We're offering up people two totally garbage candidates and then saying, 'OK, what if we made it worse.'"

That's Reason magazine Editor in Chief Katherine Mangu-Ward kicking off a new Reason podcast hosted by me and featuring guest Eli Lake, who writes about national security for Bloomberg View.

In the 40 minutes of fast-paced, wide-ranging conversation, we talk about whether alleged past assaults by Donald Trump should disqualify him from the presidency, how Wikileaks is confirming everyone's lowest opinion of Hillary Clinton, and how Gary Johnson's lack of guile may make him unsuited to be commander in chief. Also: Does the United States need to bust Russia's lip to maintain international order and are we living in a fully post-fact world?

Produced by Ian Keyser. Listen by clicking below.

Don't miss a single Reason podcast or video!

Subscribe to our audio podcast at iTunes.

Follow us at Soundcloud.

Subscribe to our video podcast at iTunes.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Comments

[The Fusionist]

Yes, yes, and yes, so you all have to vote for Darrell Castle.

Relax, that was more or less a joke.

[MarkLastname]

Isn't he a fictional character on a TV show where he plays a novelist who bangs a cop?

[EllieHorton]

I'm making over $15k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. Go to website and click to Tech tab for more work details...Go Now... http://tinyurl.com/hso7qky

[EllieHorton]

I'm making over $15k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. Go to website and click to Tech tab for more work details...Go Now... http://tinyurl.com/hso7qky

[R C Dean]

Actually, mere lying, groping and/or honesty don't disqualify anyone, in my book.

Assault, perjury, fraud, money laundering, cash for influence - those things disqualify, IMO.

[Square = Circle]

Well look at Mister Picky over here.

[Rufus The Monocled]

It's not bad if you do it for the children.

[OneOut]

Eddie Murphy puts it all in perspective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yuj5oI_fGkA

[Jerryskids]

"It's like we're testing the proposition that candidates themselves don't matter, that the only thing that matters is their party affiliation."

That's my take on why the Dems nominated Hillary - the 2012 election gave them the numbers that showed Romney was off by a few points on his "47%" remark and the Dems had a permanent ruling coalition. Hillary didn't actually have to be a "candidate", somebody that could appeal to cross-overs, moderates or independents in order to win in the general, since the Dem primary was the de facto Presidential election. The Dems didn't nominate Hillary for her electability, they nominated her for her governability. She knows the game and the players, she knows where the bodies are buried and which closets have skeletons, she knows who can be bought and sold and she knows their price - she can hit the ground running and Get Things Done from Day One.

[Jerryskids]

Bernie was a threat to that because he was coming up with these crazy appealing ideas that had zero chance of getting implemented when the Dems didn't care about appealing ideas because they don't need appealing ideas to get elected. Bernie's some sort of idealist who has absolutely no connections and no juice at the highest levels, no more so than Donald Trump or Gary Johnson. All your ideas may be great - but how you gonna implement them when the only way to get the real PTB on your side is to know exactly whose balls you gotta squeeze and whose balls you gotta stroke to get some action out of them? You think those crooks give a rat's ass about "good ideas"? All they wanna know is "what's in it for me?" and they want that answer in the form of a number, dollars or votes.

[Agent Cooper]

[OneOut]

It's very much like the Italian Mafia from what I have read.

[kbolino]

It is worth noting that no small number of "the 47%" are Republicans or Republican-leaning and no small number of "the 53%" are Democrats or Democrat-leaning.

Paying taxes doesn't automatically make you want to lower them, any more than not paying taxes makes you automatically want to raise them. Incentives are statistically powerful but not deterministic. Also, individuals have more and other incentives in their lives besides taxes.

I'm sure you know this, but your analysis seems kind of simplistic.

[Square = Circle]

And the federal income tax is far from the only tax. The 47% pay plenty of taxes - just not federal income taxes. And taxes hurt worse when you're poor. Someone who's already struggling with property tax, sales tax, gas tax, excise taxes, etc., reacts with mild hostility when they get told "well, you don't currently pay any taxes to us, so we're just gonna fix that little oversight . . ."

[Calidissident]

Good points. Also, voter turnout rates rise as income does. So even if 47% of the potential electorate doesn't pay income taxes, that percentage is lower for the actual electorate.

[R C Dean]

The Dems nominated Hillary (leaving aside all the leverage she has in hte party) for one reason:

Her vagina.

They are too far gone in identity politics to nominate a white male to lead the ticket unless there is practically no one else available. They are counting on her to bring in new/crossover female voters, like Obama brought in new/crossover minority voters.

That's it, IMO. They now have a formula, and the head of the ticket has to be a "minority" or a woman. The formula is driven by their identity politics and by an electoral calculation.

[kevrob]

......all the leverage she has in hte party.......

I assume you meant .....all the leverage she has in hate party......

[Calidissident]

I don't think that's a reasonable conclusion to draw from the 2012 election. Obama was far from a worst-case candidate for the Democrats and Romney wasn't a best-case candidate for the GOP either. And while it wasn't a nailbiter, it was fairly close by historical standards. Not too many presidents have won reelection more narrowly than Obama did.

And this cycle, I think Hillary was very vulnerable to Republican candidates other than Trump. Kasich was killing her in hypothetical general election matchups (and Rubio was beating her as well) even at the same time she was up big on Trump. I think Rand would have had a good chance as well if he had won the nomination. Maybe Cruz if he generated high turnout, or perhaps even Jeb! if he got past his last name.

[Jerryskids]

Well, Trump may be uniquely horrible, but you're fooling yourself thinking the media wouldn't have seen to it that everybody heard whoever the GOP nominated was literally worse than Hitler. Heck, whitebread moderate RINO Mitt Romney got slagged for once having a pet carrier on his car (so did we when I was a kid), suggesting his campaign could write off about 47% of the electorate because there was no way they were voting for him no matter what (which is true - the free shit brigade only votes for free shit), and answering the question of how many women he'd appoint to high positions by mentioning that he had binders full of good candidates (and the media did their "like with a cloth?" thing by pretending he meant he kept women in a binder) - and that, along with Candy Crowley helping out Obama at the debate, was enough to fix in the LIV's minds that Mitt was a monster. You don't need to fool all of the people all of the time when some of the people some of the time gets the job done just fine.

[Calidissident]

I agree that the media would demonize the GOP nominee regardless, but that has little to do with what Romney said in the 47% comment, and it doesn't mean the Democrats have a guaranteed spot in the White House. Despite all his flaws and controversies, Trump was almost tied with Clinton before the first debate - I think it's crazy to think that no other candidate could have done better than that and wouldn't have crashed and burned from the debates and the latest scandals.

"suggesting his campaign could write off about 47% of the electorate because there was no way they were voting for him no matter what (which is true - the free shit brigade only votes for free shit"

This isn't true no matter how many times Romney, you, or anyone else says it. Not paying income tax doesn't mean you vote Democrat, and paying income tax doesn't mean there's a 90+% chance you vote Republican. That binary distinction doesn't automatically determine your opinion on tax policy, and yes people do vote for reasons other than taxes. It baffles me why some libertarians of all people attach so much moral worth to a person based on whether or not the US federal government decides they owe them money. The 47% number doesn't even apply to the voting electorate, because people with higher incomes have much higher turnout rates than people with lower incomes do.

[Jerryskids]

Romney: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.

That's how Romney started off that comment. 47% of the electorate ain't voting for me no matter what so why bother wasting my time trying to get them to vote for me? How is that not just good common sense? Why would you spend a lot of time trying to get hard-core Dems to vote for you? You don't have a right to food and housing and medical care or college or a job or anything else the left keeps pushing as "human rights" - they ain't rights as long as somebody else has to provide them - but 47% of the electorate thinks it's the governments job to provide them with free shit. And Hillary's got that 47% locked up, or would have if the GOP weren't running a Democrat promising free shit, too.

[Calidissident]

He got the 47% figure based on the % of filers who don't pay income tax. He may be right that there are some people in the electorate are like that but that doesn't mean his assertion that it's 47% based on the number that don't pay income tax is accurate.

[Bill]

I think the actual point is a bit different than the one you are arguing against. IF a candidate says they will cut entitlements they will almost certainly lose most of the votes of the people dependent on those entitlements. And as you know, it is almost political suicide to even say that you will look into the possibility of making them more efficient. The MSM immediately brings out the starving kids and old people wailing and gnashing of teeth. However, both Clinton and Trump know what to do: just promise to spend more and more. But, you are right, it is not about income or taxes as much as people want their free stuff or even their Social Security that they think they've earned.

[Ken Shultz]

Gillespie, have you not seen this?

"In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton's State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records."

"Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors"
Mother Jones

http://www.motherjones.com/pol.....arms-deals

Hillary's lying is the least of her problems. I wish Hillary were merely a liar.

She took money from foreign governments while she was Secretary of State.

Lying? Who cares about lying, when the truths she says are so vile?

[R C Dean]

Why can't Trump just run that as an ad, I wonder? Go with it as the single message for a few cycles. Jam it up the MSM's ass.

She and her family took in around $100mm from from companies and governments that needed, and got, Hillary's approval for deals. Who cares about the details? What else do you need to know, to know this woman should not be allowed anywhere near the Presidency.

And, if they insist that it was OK because it went to the Foundation, then pivot to that; What the hell has the Foundation accomplished with all this money?

Sadly, I think its too late in the game for this ploy, but it might be the best one he has left.

[Calidissident]

In a lot of industries, there are strict rules governing acceptance of gifts, services, etc. in order to avoid appearances of corruption, conflicts of interest, unethical behavior, etc. even if in many cases there might not be actual corrupt or unethical behavior involved.

Even if the Foundation donations were unrelated, didn't benefit the donors or the Clintons personally, etc. it still creates terrible appearances and it says a lot that a sitting Secretary of State doesn't give a shit about that.

[Ken Shultz]

It's so awful, nobody may have thought to make a law against it. '

They just thought the world would never get so insane that a Secretary of State who took money from foreign governments could ever be elected President.

That's the true meaning of the word "unconscionable".

[Square = Circle]

There are laws. They just only apply to the little people.

[Square = Circle]

A mid-level bureaucrat would be raked over the coals, fired, and possibly even jailed if they so much as accepted a box of donuts from a contractor that could stand to benefit from that bureaucrat's decisions. Mid-level bureaucrats literally lay awake nights worrying about that kind of thing.

[Ken Shultz]

What about the cash payments to family members?

Chelsea got a $600,000 deal to do one one-hour segment for MSNBC--back when MSNBC was owned by GE and GE 1) had defense contracts to foreign governments pending for Hillary's approval and 2) GE (according to that link) had already given Hillary a million through the foundation just weeks before having their sales approved.

Hammer home the cash payments to Hillary's family. They've all been reported through both the Foundation documents and the publicly available reports of the State Department itself.

A bank robbery is still a bank robbery even if it's done unmasked and in broad daylight, and taking money from foreign governments while Secretary of State is still taking money from foreign governments while Secretary of State even if it's done in broad daylight and reported by the State Department.

I don't know why Trump doesn't articulate this stuff better either--except his campaign is not well funded for advertising. Still he should begin and end every speech with this: Hillary took money from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State.

Hillargo delenda est!

[kevrob]

HRC's first name derives from the Latin Hilarius, and would end in -a in the feminine, nominative singular case So.....

Hilaria delenda est.

Kevin R

(calling on his inner John Cleese - Romanes eunt domes?)

[Jerryskids]

BO - RRRRING!!!!

How you gonna fit that on a bumpersticker or into an eight second sound bite? Ain't nobody got time for all that, so the media will just pass over it with a quick reminder that anything bad you hear about Clinton is just lies and propaganda spread by the Russians in an attempt to influence the election. And did we mention the 412 times we told you about the time Trump said something crazy? Let's look at the video one more time.

[R C Dean]

Bumper sticker? Not seeing it.

Eight second sound bite? What's wrong with "Hillary Clinton approved arms deals while she was Secretary of State after being paid tens of millions of dollars by foreign governments and gunrunners."

[Jerryskids]

Well I can see you have no future in the news biz if you can't come up with a convenient excuse not to cover any negative news of Hillary. In fact, it almost looks like you're deliberately trying to be fair and balanced and that sort of nonsense will get you nowhere fast.

[BearOdinson]

I have been on the fence for quite a while (The first presidential election since I was old enough to vote, that I was unsure of what I was going to do this late).

But I have fucking had it with Hillary. I am voting for fucking Trump and I don't give a fuck. Fuck that corrupt, lying, treasonous, fucking hag. Trump is an ass and a boor and nowhere close to a libertarian. But at this point, I think I would vote for fucking Genghis Khan to keep that bitch out of the White House.

[tres]

Yep. Fuck HER and the entire lot of enabling whore media.

[MetalBard]

My thoughts exactly. It's not about supporting Trump, it's about punishing a corrupt politician and a corrupt media. Donald Trump may not deserve to win, but Hillary and her media allies certainly deserve to lose. If that means holding my nose and voting Trump then so be it.

[MetalBard]

To put it another way Trump may not be the president we deserve, but he is the giant fuck you the media, and the elites need.

[Mr Lizard]

The mammal with the hair is exactly what you stoooooopid insipid bi-ped meat popcicles deserve.

[Jackand Ace]

At some point, you'll recognize that it's not a Trump problem, it's a GOP problem. Their electorate put him there and continue to defend him (so do the supposed libertarian commenters here).

He is unhinged. Listen to his rally today. And the GOP electorate put him there, and will vote for him. Actually, many of the libertarian commenters here sound like they will vote for him. I know the conspiracy theorists here think Democrats put him there, which is laughable.

You all hung your hat with the GOP (see Rand Paul), you deserve him.

[Johnny Hit n Run Paulene]

Cool story, bro.

[Square = Circle]

Yes. It was all due to the GOP electorate. There was nothing else operating there. Nothing at all.

[Jackand Ace]

They voted for him. Are you suggesting Democrats made them do it?

[Square = Circle]

Note the constant complaints from the Clinton camp about all the "free publicity" Trump gets from "the Media" and how much that helps him all by itself.

Trump barely campaigned at all. He didn't spend any money to speak of. The Republican establishment and media were entirely against him and did not take him seriously. He could have been completely ignored and he would now be a half-remembered joke from last year.

Yet the dominant media outlets, which we now know with absolute certainty were taking direction from the Clinton campaign, gave Trump hundreds of millions of dollars worth of free publicity.

And as Ken notes below, a pretty small percentage of registered Republicans actually supported Trump.

So the narrative that Trump is 100% an outgrowth of the Republican base and was in no way pumped up by Democrat operatives in the media is pretty weak tea.

[Calidissident]

I still think it's weak sauce to push the blame elsewhere. And if you read the memo, you see that they want to promote the "extreme" candidates because they believe them to actually be the mainstream of the party (also this memo was before Trump announced he was running, and before all the controversies of this cycle - the main reasons at that time that he'd be viewed as an extreme candidate who they'd want to face were his birtherism activities, which were in line with what a huge part, if not a majority of the GOP base believed, and his general reputation as, at best, an eccentric reality TV star billionaire with no political experience).

I don't think the media just covered Trump to help Clinton. He was fantastic for ratings. He attracted attention that other candidates just didn't. They could have covered him all they want, but if Republican voters weren't interested in what he was selling it would have had limited effectiveness.

[Square = Circle]

Agreed - it's not nearly as simple as either proposition, i.e. to dismiss as "laughable" the idea that the Democrats and the media had anything to do with helping Trump into his position, or to claim that the Democrats and the media are the only reason Trump was successful. His supporters obviously support him and have to take primary responsibility for him - that's just a given.

Believe me, I'm no fan of the GOP, and rarely will rise to defend them. What I'm reacting too is Jackand's assertion that people here supported Rand Paul, Rand Paul is a Republican, the "Republican electorate" nominated Trump, so therefore we are somehow responsible for Trump as part of this "Republican electorate" whose fault Trump is.

I was snarkily raising the point that if anything his people had more of a hand in creating Trump than we did.

[Calidissident]

Yeah I agree that jackand's point about rand Paul was stupid

[Jackand Ace]

As Ken ignores below, when the GOP race came down to just 2 or 3 candidates, Trump still won, and fairly easily. And he gains right now nearly 70% popularity among Republicans. Your defense of the GOP is duly noted, on this libertarian website.

[Square = Circle]

he gains right now nearly 70% popularity among Republicans

Among those who are left, yes.

Your defense of the GOP is duly noted, on this libertarian website.

Why - are you keeping some kind of list for future gulags?

When did I defend the GOP? I pointed out that the Democratic Party assisted in bringing us their awful, awful candidate.

How is that a defense of the GOP?

[Jackand Ace]

By the way, Ken has yet said how many Democrats voted for Trump in the open primaries. Do you know?

This country is divided fairly equally in thirds...Dems, Reps, and independents, which includes libertarians.

When Ken says open primaries went for a Trump, he assumes Dems did that. I could assume Independents did that, including libertarians.

In fact, I don't know any Dems voting for a Trump. Reading these pages, there are plenty libertarians voting for a Trump. See Bear above.

[Ken Shultz]

He won 13 of 16 states with open primaries.

He lost as many as he won in closed primaries.

That might be dismissed if Trump were championing traditional Republican causes. But he wasn't going big on fiscal conservatism or prayer in public schools.

Trump was championing traditional Democrat causes like anti free trade and the immigrants "terk er jerbs".

Meanwhile, it isn't surprising to see traditional blue collar Democrats fleeing the progressive leadership of the Democratic Party. After all, the progressives have been demonizing blue collar whites for being homophobic for being Christian, stupid for being unreceptive to global warming, racist for being white, islamophobic, etc. for the past eight years. After eight years of being demonized by progressives, why wouldn't white, blue collar, middle class voters flee the Democratic Party and cling to Trump in the primaries?

[Jackand Ace]

Let me know how many Dems crossed over and voted for Trump. Until then, you're guessing. And I could make just as valid a guess and say independents like libertarians crossed over and voted for him.

But guess what...u wouldn't do that because it's fantasy. It's Republicans who own him...lock stock and barrel.

[Ken Shultz]

That's an interesting question: If Trump winning the primaries is somehow indicative of some issue in the Republican Party, which issue is it?

Did Republicans flock to Trump because of his stated opposition to the Iraq War?

Trump ran as a Democrat on every issue but political correctness--which isn't really an issue. He won in the primaries as a coalition of Republicans who are disgusted by political correctness and people who have traditionally been Democrats and in many cases remain registered Democrats.

He sure as hell didn't win by campaigning on traditional Republican issues, so why would I think there's anything especially Republican about him?

Trump is to the left of Bill Clinton.

[Calidissident]

Even if Trump did "run as a Democrat" he got elected as the Republican nominee, so it reflects on Republicans. That's also an exaggeration for a few reasons - Trump did propose tax cuts, and some other aspects of his economic plan were in line with normal Republican policy though others weren't. He at least paid lip service on abortion and gay marriage even if they weren't big issues for him. His immigration policy is much more in line with standard Republican or conservative views these days than Democratic or liberal views. And even on free trade, Republicans today have a less positive view of it than Democrats do. There has long been a segment of the right that's pro-protectionism (and the Republican Party was for a long time, from the mid 1800s to the mid 1900s), it's not uniquely a left-wing position.

[Ken Shultz]

"Even if Trump did "run as a Democrat" he got elected as the Republican nominee, so it reflects on Republicans."

In what way?

[Calidissident]

Uh, he was elected by Republican voters?

[Jackand Ace]

And he was put up for nomination by the Republican Party. And won because Republican voters voted for him. And yet, channeling Flip Wilson, the devil made them do it.

[Ken Shultz]

Trump won because registered Democrats voted for him.

He won 13 of 16 states with open primaries--because those were the states where Democrats could vote for him.

Of the 3 open primaries he lost, two of them were lost to his rivals' home states. He lost to Kasich in Ohio, and he lost to Cruz in Texas.

Trump did especially well in open primary, rust belt states like Michigan, Illinois, and Indiana. Trump won in Democratic strongholds with open primaries like Vermont and Massachusetts.

Average people may think of themselves as Republican because they like Trump and despise Hillary--but if they voted for Obama, Kerry, Gore, and Bill Clinton and they're still registered as Democrats--they're just talking about how they see themselves at the moment in relation to the Republican candidate.

It might be different if they were changing their minds about free trade and immigration--but when they vote for Trump, they're keeping their union mentality on all those issues. Dey terk er jerbs!

Trump lost in states with closed primaries. Trump did not run on Republican issues.

Trump ran on Democrat issues. Trump won big in states with open primaries.

All the data we have shows the wind blowing in the same direction.

[Ken Shultz]

Polling requires people to self-report their party identification. We have secret ballots in this country.

If you won't see the truth unless we check every voter's registration card and follow every one of them individually into the voting booth with a camera, then you're just being willfully blind. The inference from the facts we have are plain as day. You just don't like what they say for whatever reason.

[Calidissident]

Ken,

Are you ever going to acknowledge the point I made that this article you link was written in the middle of the primaries? And that Trump's best performances were in (mostly) closed primaries in the Northeast in April? And that this supports my notion that the open-closed disparity early in the primaries was from geographic differences in the states that have open and closed contests? Trump dominated both open and closed contests in the Northeast and the South. These states mostly had open contests in the first half of the race. But he won Southern states (other than Texas, Cruz's home state) with closed primaries, and in April he crushed northeastern states with closed primaries.

[Jackand Ace]

He is? The guy who says climate change is a hoax? The guy who says anyone Muslim should be banned? A wall should be built? Women should be punished for abortions? Who wants tax cuts for the rich and corporations? I could go on...that guy?

[Robert]

Even if non-Republicans provided the winning margin, it's on the Republicans in those states for opening their primaries to others.

[Ken Shultz]

Even if opening the Republican primaries up to registered Democrats was a mistake, Trump's winning the primaries on the backs of disaffected Democrats still doesn't tell us much about the larger Republican party.

If anything, it tells us about what's happening in the Democratic Party--they're bleeding support from the traditional base so heavily, that in a field split six ways to Sunday, they're able to overwhelm the Republican primaries and impact the outcome.

[Heroic Mulatto]

And it was a brilliant move by the Democrats. They got to forever shed the hard hat "socially conservative, economically liberal" types and become the Euro-style part of Social Democracy that they've always wanted to be. In the process, the Trump-era GOP has metastasized into a Euro-style Christian Democrat party.

Long story short, classical liberalism is dead. Deader than the dodo.

[Ken Shultz]

If anyone but Trump were running against Hillary, we'd be looking at Republican control of the House, the Senate, the White House, and the control of both houses of enough state legislatures to propose Constitutional amendments.

No planning involved. Chasing your own base out of the party isn't a smart strategy. This landed in the Democrats' lap. They just got lucky.

[Agent Cooper]

If anyone but Trump were running against Hillary

I hate to break it to you, but Cruz is Hitler, too. And Rubio.

What we are seeing is the scorched earth politics of personal destruction writ large.

[Ken Shultz]

The Democrats would have smeared other candidates with the same paint, but not as much of it would have stuck.

[Bill]

Sadly, they would have covered Trump a lot anyway since he is entertaining in his own way. Shocking, vulgar, anti-PC, a loud-mouth snake-oil salesman, etc. What's not to like in terms of getting ratings?

[Ken Shultz]

"At some point, you'll recognize that it's not a Trump problem, it's a GOP problem. Their electorate put him there and continue to defend him"

There are a whole laundry list of problems with that statement.

Let's start with the fact that only 9% of the American people voted in the primaries, and then note that a majority of Republicans voted for someone other than Trump.

http://www.nytimes.com/interac.....inton.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.c.....count.html

[Calidissident]

9% is the percentage of people who voted for Trump or Clinton, not the % that voted in the primaries altogether.

[Jackand Ace]

Trump has a 67% approval rating among Republicans.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/n.....ryan-poll/

Right now.

[Ken Shultz]

Hillary has a 55% unfavorable rating.

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

How many of those people support Trump with nose clamps on their tightest setting because they hate Hilary more?

From the same link, 33% have a favorable view of Trump.

Assuming all of Trump's supporters are Republicans (which is a bad assumption), that means half of the people you're calling Trump supporters have an unfavorable view of Trump.

You're just seeing what you want to see.

[Jackand Ace]

And Dems? How many support Trump? That's your contention.

[Ken Shultz]

Give these two articles a read.

First there's the NYT burying the lead:

"Mr. Trump fares best among people who identify as Republicans but nonetheless remain registered Democrats or have a history of voting in Democratic primaries ? a legacy of their previous political allegiances ? according to data from Civis Analytics, a Democratic firm.

One result is that Mr. Trump's strength mirrors that of the Democrats in the middle part of the last century. It may seem odd to see Massachusetts paired with Mississippi as the top two states for Mr. Trump, but it's something the Democrats pulled off quite regularly from 1928 until the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03.....oters.html

Then CNBC talking about the actual results of the primaries:

"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.

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

Do the math yourself.

[Calidissident]

Ken,

If you read Cohn's entire article, he talks about how Trump has a lot of appeal among the type of Republican primary voters who would have been Democrats decades ago - but that doesn't mean these people are modern Democrats who just jumped on board the GOP because Trump was running. He even mentions that a lot of these voters have been voting Republican in presidential elections for decades. One of the regions he mentions is the South - a place that has been reliably Republican at the presidential level for decades. In recent years, Republicans have gotten 70-90% of the white vote in presidential elections in most Southern states. At what point are these people no longer Democrats and are now Republicans? People change their political affiliations and voting habits, it's a fact of life.

And this is about the fifth time I've responded to the "open primary" thing and I don't think you've ever even acknowledged my response - States that had open primaries tended to be located in geographically favorable territory like the South and the Northeast. The only closed contest (at least as of the time that article was written) in either area that Trump lost was in Maine, which had a caucus (where Cruz tended to outperform in general). Take a look at the exit polls from the open primaries - Trump won solidly among Republicans, not just independents and Democrats. The very article you linked shows that Trump did better with Republicans than independents in open primaries

[Calidissident]

Also, since your article was from the middle of the primaries, I looked it up and after that article was written, Trump has a string of huge, crushing victories in mostly closed-primary states in April that essentially clinched the nomination for him - namely, New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Maryland, and Delaware. All closed primaries. Lends further credence to my argument that geography was more important than whether a contest was open or closed.

[kevrob]

Plenty of conservative and moderate voters in the big East Coast cities register as Dems in order to vote in the Democratic primary for local elections, as the GOP opposition is so weak that winning the D primary is tantamount to election. Trump, himself, has registered as a Democrat, more than once.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/b.....ory-567920

That's not as big a deal elsewhere. For example in Wisconsin, not only is there no party registration, and an open primary, but local races (mayor, city council, etc) are non-partisan, with a 2-stage election: multi-candidate primary, and 2-candidate runoff. The only people who are actual party members are the ones who send for a party card and may pay dues. "Crossing over" to cause mischief in a party you dislike is trivially easy, and if you don't mind losing your vote in "your party" that day, you can.

[Ken Shultz]

Yeah, that the New York Times is reluctant to accept that progressives are chasing their own traditional base out of the party and into the arms of Trump shouldn't be surprising.

You saw the same kind of rhetoric when Carter era Democrats chased the same demographics out of the Democraic Party and into the arms of Ronald Reagan. That was the exact same dynamic at work.

"Reagan Democrats" no longer saw the Democratic party as champions of their working class aspirations, but instead saw them as working primarily for the benefit of others: the very poor, feminists, the unemployed, African Americans, Latinos, and other groups."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Democrat

That was written about white, blue collar, middle class voters in 1980, but it might as well have been written about white, blue collar, middle class voters today.

And I assure you, the NYT was just as much in denial then about what was happening as they are today.

[Calidissident]

Ken most of those people have been voting republican since the 80s or earlier. White non-college educated people haven't been the bulk of the democratic base for decades. And they're nonetheless poised to win a 3rd straight presidential election. These people are republicans now.

[Jackand Ace]

I can't. And no one else can but you. Let me know how many Dems crossed over. And while you're at it, how many independents...waiting.

[Ken Shultz]

You want somebody to have checked the actual registration of every primary voter and then followed each and every one of them into the booth with a camera?

We have secret ballots in this country.

Polling has to rely on self-reporting.

We can rely on inference, though. It's what reasonable people do.

We take the facts we have, and we make logical inferences.

That isn't what you're doing, though. You're closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and going, "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA".

. . . which isn't surprising! Why would a progressive want to believe that progressivism is driving the Democratic base out of the party?

[Calidissident]

33% have an unfavorable view, not a favorable view. Also, that number was lower before Pussygate.

[Ken Shultz]

I don't even understand what you're objecting to.

The point is that if 55% of the American people see Hillary Unfavorably, then Jack's 67% support for Trump among registered Republicans could just as easily be interpreted as opposition to Hillary rather than support for Trump specifically.

I certainly don't support Trump, but I prefer him to Hillary because Hillary took money from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State.

[Calidissident]

I was correcting what you wrote - reread the comment I replied to, it says 33% favorable, not unfavorable, though that may have just been a typo on your part.

In the polls, favorability is a separate question from who you're voting for. You can still say you're voting for Trump while having an unfavorable opinion of him, and some Republicans are doing that.

Also, Trump's numbers were similar or better well before he wrapped up the nomination and became Clinton's opponent. So that reasoning doesn't explain it.

[Ken Shultz]

No, I wrote it correctly.

33% of the American people have a favorable view of Trump.

62% have an unfavorable view.

Check the link:

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

A large number of registered Republicans are voting for Trump in spite of the fact that they do not like him.

The reason they are supporting Trump despite the fact that they do not like him is because Hillary Clinton is a crook.

I don't like Donald Trump, but I prefer him to Hillary because she took money from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State. That means I'm pretty typical.

It also means that Jack & Ace is talking out his ass when he tries to extend anything about Trump to the Republican party itself. Hell, even the Republican leadership is trying to distance themselves from Trump--they aren't doing that because he's so popular with and typical of their base.

[Calidissident]

Oh ok I thought you meant 33% of Republicans had a favorable view.

Still, my point stands that his favorability with Republicans was solidly positive well before he was the nominee.

[Jackand Ace]

By the way, Rand Paul endorsed Trump. Has he walked that back yet? I don't think so. He is like the commenters here.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/natemc......diQoMPMAa

[R C Dean]

Sane and rational? Able to weigh Trump's pecadilloes against Hillary's criminal career rationally?

Probably so.

[Square = Circle]

He kept his word and supported the nominee like he said he would.

Has he campaigned for Trump? Was he at the convention? Has he said anything favorable about Trump at all?

[Johnny Hit n Run Paulene]

So he is invoking Reagan's 11th commandment? His choice and certainly not the worst thing in the world, but doesn't influence whom I'm voting for.

[Square = Circle]

His choice and certainly not the worst thing in the world, but doesn't influence whom I'm voting for.

Agreed - Rand is still a Republican, albeit one who doesn't suck as much as most.

[Jackand Ace]

That's the courage he displays? Johnson is out there, you know.

[Johnny Hit n Run Paulene]

It apparently Rand Paul's choice in how he is playing it. You mad bro?

[Square = Circle]

That's the courage he displays? Johnson is out there, you know.

Johnson is a member of a different party and didn't sign a pledge to vote for the Republican nominee.

Rand's first mistake was joining the Republican Party and seeking their nomination. The route he took from there was, IMHO, the most honorable one he had left for himself.

Have a wonderful weekend!

[Jackand Ace]

You as well!

[Ken Shultz]

Jack and Ace has a hard time imagining that Hillary is unpopular, but that's delusional.

Hillary has had around a 55% unfavorable rating since January, according to Gallup, and according to Gallup, Hillary hasn't had a favorable rating above 50% since July of 2014 (Two Thousand Fourteen).

She's wildly unpopular. Most of everyone hates her, and you can see why. She's a corruption magnate. She's been knee deep in corruption since her days in Little Rock. She can't help herself, and everyone knows it.

That's why America hates Hillary.

That's why Republicans support Trump.

[gaoxiaen]

Speak for yourself. The only advantage to a Trump presidency would be photos of his wife. (I'll be in my bunk)

[Johnny Hit n Run Paulene]

"You all hung your hat with the GOP (see Rand Paul), you deserve him."

I agree with the statement that, "Every nation gets the government it deserves," if that is the point you are making. But I'm not clear on whom you mean when you say, "You all."

[Square = Circle]

All people who don't support Clinton support Trump.

How many times to Joe, AmSoc, and Tony have to explain this to you?

[Johnny Hit n Run Paulene]

42

[Ken Shultz]

+42

[R C Dean]

Unless Jack is voting for Stein, he's hung his hat with the Dems, and he deserves Herself.

Its funny: Jack is a pretty classic braindead partisan locked into a Manichean worldview where you are either for his candidate, or for the other major party candidate. He can't process anything that doesn't fall into that very simple two-dimensional world.

Sadly, neither can a great many other Americans.

[Johnny Hit n Run Paulene]

Ain't that the truth.

[Square = Circle]

*sadly shakes head*

[R C Dean]

One more, then its happy hour.

What those of us who don't live in a simple two-dimensional world see is that our two major parties, which are pretty much our political ecosystem, have both catastrophically failed this year, as evidenced by their candidates. Neither Trump nor Clinton would ever have been nominated by a politically party that wasn't very deeply dysfunctional. Their dysfunctions are different, but I don't think there is any escaping the conclusion that our duopoly is a failed institution.

But, if you are a 2D partisan, you can't see that, because you can't admit that your Team is deeply dysfunctional and a failed institution.

[Ken Shultz]

"But, if you are a 2D partisan, you can't see that, because you can't admit that your Team is deeply dysfunctional and a failed institution.

I think that gets it right to a certain extent.

Specifically, I think Jack's problem is that he doesn't want to believe that progressive SJWs in the Democratic Party are anything but popular. He certainly doesn't want to believe that progressives are chasing the white, blue collar, middle class out of the Democratic party tent.

On the Republican side, I think we're seeing something different.

There's a huge influx of disaffected traditional Democrats, but they happened to show up at a time when the Republican party is in transition. Republicans like Cruz, Rubio, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, etc. were the young upstarts just a year ago. The Republican party was in transition--but that probably wasn't indicative of dysfunction. That these Tea Party firebrands had risen up in the Republican hierarchy was a healthy thing.

If Republicans were vulnerable to a guy like Trump because the old dysfunctional establishment was still coming to terms with the fact that they weren't driving the bus anymore, then Trump may have interrupted a transition, but it was a healthy process he interrupted.

[Smells Like Reason]

Semi OT: I want to download an mp3 of this podcast for my mobile device. But there's no link. I mail myself a link to this page and to the podcast on SoundCloud, and click it on my phone, and it says it's not available on mobile. Why? It's a talk radio show. Isn't mobile where talk radio thrives? Why make me sit at a computer to listen to it? The Dylan podcast too. Bah. What am I overlooking?

Also would be nice if the home page links to pieces that are mostly audio and video would consistently indicate that.

[Jerryskids]

Here's the way I look at it.

As long as Trump destroys the GOP, I'm fine with that. But getting Trump elected is not going to destroy the GOP, it's going to save the GOP. It'll just no longer be a place for fiscal conservatives or anybody who doesn't believe government is the answer to all our problems. You're just going to have the red-state socialist party and the blue-state socialist party arguing over what the government should be spending our grandchildren's money on and sooner or later, one way or another, you run out of other people's money. And then it gets ugly. Might as well get on with it now while there's still something worth salvaging.

[Mr.Mist]

Good podcast except for the anti Russian BS

[westernsloper]

"what is our foreign policy?
-Nick

Cmon, we all know our foreign policy is to drone kill whoever POTUS wants to kill regardless of anything including due process in the case of Americans, and according to him, he is good at it. We send soldiers and SF guys to all corners of the world and say we have no boots on the ground, as well as shoot missiles into Yemen so the Saudis can kill people who have the bad judgement to go to a wedding. Eli is a delusional Obamabot. And if he gets his way, we will get more of this idiocy with the most corrupt person to ever run for President at the helm. Fuck Eli and all yammering nitwits like him.

[Calidissident]

Ken most of those people have been voting republican since the 80s or earlier. White non-college educated people haven't been the bulk of the democratic base for decades. Those people are republicans now.

[Calidissident]

Sorry this was supposed to be a reply up thread.

[GILMORE?]

White non-college educated people haven't been the bulk of the democratic base for decades

they were more or less the same between parties only 8 years ago.

Whether they were "the bulk" of anyone's base is sort of irrelevant - what do you mean anyway? Primary voters? Share of registered voters? The ones who actually show up?

If you read too much of the media bullshit, you get the impression the demographic differences between GOP and DNC are enormous. the fact is that they have routinely swapped cohorts, and that they actually overlap in large degrees with the same populations. 60/40 is actually a 'huge' split - and yet its still mostly a shared population.

If there's any group that is demographically locked up, its blacks. everyone else is shared and fluid.

[Calidissident]

Three things:

1) 2008 was a very favorable year for the Democrats.

2) Most of the change in that came from 2008-2012 not the last 4 years, so there's little to suggest Trump has ushered in a movement

3) When it comes to presidential politics, which party people vote for is more important than which party they identify with.

And as you can see from this source, aside from Bill Clinton's 2 victories, Republicans have resoundingly won the non-college educated white vote in every election since 1980.

http://www.prri.org/spotlight/.....e-degrees/

And my point about the bulk thing is that Ken has this narrative that he won't let go where white working-class Democrats, the base (in his mind) of the party, have mass defected this cycle to vote for Trump, and they were responsible for Trump winning the nomination, not Republicans. I'm just pointing out that this isn't true and that he's largely relying on outdated stereotypes about each party.

[GILMORE?]

The chart here shows that Dem/GOP split of "White people with no college degree" was basically the same 'going back decades', contra your point. There was little difference in that pop until after obama got elected.

You were acting as though there were some exodus from the democratic party a long time ago. Its simply not true.

Your linked source is about "election exit polls", not the total share of the vote represented by each party. Which is exactly the sort of misunderstanding of #s i was talking about above.

People take limited information and make sweeping statements about populations which are basically untrue. Its Stupidity created by treating your weeny media sources as more significant than they really are. When you step back from these silly political bean-counting exercises you'll grasp that the Blue/Red - City/Country dichotomy much hemmed & hawed about by the media, and the characterizations of the hordes of "Uneducated White Rural Voters" is mostly an oversimplification which feeds the cultural biases of the urban political-wonk class. They want to believe in these sorts of monolithic cultural distinctions, when they're mostly invented in their own minds though a mix of over-weighting of polling like what you cite, and their limited understanding of the country outside their own narrow milieu.

[GILMORE?]

- I think the problem here is similar to the way college campuses are reported about these days. We read 100s of stores about safe spaces and microaggressions and Rape Culture... and you get the impression that Universities are dominated by this identity politics bullshit 24/7, and no one has time for any actual schooling between the Title IX investigations....

...when the reality is - while real - that crap is just maybe 5% of what's actually going on in universities. YES, it happens, but the fact is that the way media looks at the stuff creates an impression of significance way out of proportion with reality.

Thats basically what im saying about the way pundits talk about demographic groups in the US. Everyone wants to pretend that cohorts behave in monolithic ways, and there are 100 stories repeating these same claims about the "disaffected white vote"... which is really mostly just an exercise in projection. Its a 15-20% slight difference in behavior- not a cultural bloc.

Its people who dont know anyone voting for trump who need to imagine "who those people are".

they cant accept that they might actually be "mostly normal people, more or less the same as themselves". So they publish all these bullshit photo montages of Trump rallies and only publish the pics of the fat people and the old people and trucker hats. They look for evidence confirming their internal narratives.

[Calidissident]

"Your linked source is about "election exit polls", not the total share of the vote represented by each party. Which is exactly the sort of misunderstanding of #s i was talking about above."

What are you talking about? Election exit polls measure the share of the vote each party receives. Your sources are talking about how people identify - which does not necessarily determine how they vote. A lot of those people may be the types that voted for conservative Democrats in the South at the local or state level, but voted Republican for president. For all of that change in party identification from 2008 to 2012, Romney only did a few points better than McCain did among whites with no college degree.

Also, your source only goes back to 92. If you went back 2 or 3 more decades, the Democrats would have a massive advantage among both groups of non-college whites that disappeared as they became even with HS or less and consistently behind among some college.

[GILMORE?]

If you went back 2 or 3 more decades

Oh, shut up.

You said there was some mass migration of white non-college educated people to the GOP "Decades ago

e.g.

White non-college educated people haven't been the bulk of the democratic base for decades. Those people are republicans now.

I pointed out that both parties had equal share of this population going back 30 years.

Exit polls from a handful of cherry picked elections isnt evidence of your claim, which is making silly generalizations about a large share of the population.

Go ahead an niggle with ken about any other point. Im just saying your own generalizations are in error

[Calidissident]

"Oh, shut up.

You said there was some mass migration of white non-college educated people to the GOP "Decades ago"

First off, relax. Secondly, I don't see how your link disproves. Whites without a college education were historically (like 40+ years ago) a solidly Democratic voting bloc. So if they were 50/50 in 1992, then that means there was a pretty large migration to the GOP. Thirdly, this discussion has been about presidential elections, and thus voting habits in those elections are IMO more important than identification among registered voters (many of whom don't even vote much). As you can see from the link I provided, that group has voted about 60-40 Republican in presidential elections since 1980, aside from 92 and 96 when they voted 50-50. But even those 50-50 numbers are well below what the Democrats got from this group before 1980.

Was my comment an oversimplification? Yeah, sure, I'll admit to that. I wasn't writing a master's thesis, I was making a statement to someone who I've been in a debate with on and off for months on an Internet message board who stubbornly refuses to acknowledge evidence that contradicts his argument. I'll admit to using an oversimplification in that context.

[GILMORE?]

Ken has this narrative that he won't let go where white working-class Democrats, the base (in his mind) of the party, have mass defected this cycle to vote for Trump, and they were responsible for Trump winning the nomination, not Republicans.

There's some truth to this - NYT, Atlantic, and others have run stories saying that some of the strongest trump voters in the primaries were people who voted for democrats in the last few elections

But again - same as my other point here - it really only requires maybe 20% of that group changing its orientation to make a significant difference. The idea that some group acts in some unified way, and that entire swaths of the public act as a monolithic bloc, is false. The changes in behavior are on the margins. Yes, it was enough to make a difference - and i think Ken is right that those people made a huge difference in the primaries - but you have to remember that primary voters are like a fraction of a fraction of the actual population of the US; they are a motivated 5% - they're not the same as the general polling #s which characterize the entire voting public.

[Calidissident]

"There's some truth to this - NYT, Atlantic, and others have run stories saying that some of the strongest trump voters in the primaries were people who voted for democrats in the last few elections"

It wasn't necessarily that these people voted for Democrats, at least at the presidential level, in the last few elections. But that they were registered Democrats or at some point had voted in Democratic primaries. But as Nate Cohn at the NYT wrote (Ken linked the article above), a lot of these people have been voting Republican for president for a while.

Also, I haven't seen anything in those articles to suggest that this group was a huge portion of the Republican primary electorate or that it proved decisive margins. To make an analogy, Mormons are a strongly Republican voting bloc in presidential elections, but outside of Utah and a couple other western states, they aren't of much relevance to the actual outcome because there's not too many of them.

[GILMORE?]

You're still trying to pretend im making Ken's argument, whatever that is.

Im just pointing out that some of your own stated claims are false, and your assumptions are part of the same thing this writer refers to here, re: the Dangerous Idiots of the mass-media

Hard numbers complicate, if not roundly dismiss, the oft-regurgitated theory that income or education levels predict Trump support, or that working-class whites support him disproportionately. Last month, results of 87,000 interviews...howed that those who liked Trump were under no more economic distress or immigration-related anxiety than those who opposed him.

According to the study, his supporters didn't have lower incomes or higher unemployment levels than other Americans. Income data misses a lot; those with healthy earnings might also have negative wealth or downward mobility

Earlier this year, primary exit polls revealed that Trump voters were, in fact, more affluent than most Americans, with a median household income of $72,000 ? higher than that of Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders supporters. Forty-four percent of them had college degrees, well above the national average of 33% among whites or 29% overall.

These facts haven't stopped pundits and journalists from pushing story after story about the white working class's giddy embrace of a bloviating demagogue.

[Calidissident]

How is any of that related to my assumptions?

[GILMORE?]

Go back to the beginning and see what i was pointing out you were wrong about

[Calidissident]

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say you jumped into an argument without understanding the context.

Ken and I have been having this debate for months. He was the one who brought up white non-college educated or white working class people, and how they were historically Democrats but this year nominated Trump on the Republican side. That's the reason I mention them. Because they've been the focus of Ken's argument this whole time. I'm aware that people have exaggerated the extent Trump relies on them - I've been the one arguing that Trump got enough support from traditional Republicans to win the nomination.

As for that specific sentence you quoted - I'm referring to their base voters in presidential elections - which these days are mostly minorities and college-educated white people. Whites without a college education haven't been a reliably Democratic bloc since at least the 70s - and remember, Ken is the one that's been making this all about how they are the historic Democratic base. If you have proof that either of these statements of mine are false, I'd appreciate seeing it.

[Calidissident]

Trump won closed primaries in geographically favorable territory with ease. In the open primaries he won, his margin with Republicans was often greater than his overall margin. Exit polls consistently showed Democrats as less around 5-10% at most of the Republican electorate, which is normal compared to past primaries. I'm not saying that there's nobody that exists that fits the description you or Ken are talking about, I'm saying that there's no evidence to suggest that this group was most of Trump's supporters or even that they provided a decisive margin over Cruz. It's a story that allows Republicans to shift the blame to Democrats for nominating him, when by all measures Trump was the #1 choice of Republicans this cycle.

[GILMORE?]

For the third time - im not making kens argument

Im disputing your claim that the White Poors were all Republicans "for decades",which is bullshit. Not only are they not especially republican (until recently), they're not necessarily the big-deal for Trump either (see above)

Im not interested in any "blaming" of anyone for anything. My point from the beginning was to point out that the way you people talk about demography exposes your own idiotic swallowing of bias-confirming narratives pumped by the media, which tends to over-emphasize the significance of limited sources of information, and which dont accurately reflect on large groups. What most of the sources you read (like nate silver et al) reflect are recycled assumptions based on cherry-picked numbers.

The fact is that what political pollsters try and describe as titanic shifts are actually just marginal changes to the weights of certain segments. You can still find plenty of bernie sanders supporters in trailer parks, and Trump supporters in the Upper West Side, its just that no one likes pointing that out because it doesnt feed the narrative.

[GILMORE?]

This media paradigm created the tale of a divided America ? "red" v "blue"? in which the 42% of Kansans who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 are meaningless.

there are a lot of good quotes from that piece linked above, but this is one of the ones that better makes my point.

the difference between 42% and 48% is treated as though there's some epic cultural divide involved. Its not much different than your citing of Exit Polls, where you think theres somehow something significant involved when people voted for Reagan and Bush, but somehow not when the exact same people voted for Clinton. Your evidence doesnt show what you think it does

[Calidissident]

Is it a secret that Bill Clinton connected with "middle America" and working class whites better than Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry did? I'm not saying his elections are irrelevant, I'm saying they're clearly an outlier since 1980 at least (also, Perot probably had some impact on those numbers in those elections). At the presidential level, whites without a college education voting Republican isn't really a recent thing.

You're jumping into the middle of a debate between me and Ken and completely ignoring the context of the discussion, such as that this is about voting habits, particularly at the presidential level, not about general party identification, and then nitpick and misconstrue my arguments (my point was never that working class whites were a 100% GOP demographic, so I'm not sure how the 42% vs 48% thing is relevant to anything I've said).

[Calidissident]

Not being college educated isn't the same thing as being poor. I didn't make that argument.

I'm talking about presidential-level voting habits. Not who identified with what party. I've already provided evidence that non-college educated whites have, aside from Bill Clinton's elections, voted 60-40 Republican since 1980 in presidential elections.

[GILMORE?]

lol

[GILMORE?]

The essence of this point i made, which you still fail to grok, is your hubris in saying, "Those people".... as though your narrow, cherry picked samples say anything about any signifcant Demographic/Psychographic trend

[Calidissident]

Seriously, WTF are you talking? I don't think you understand the context of the debate I'm having with Ken, which goes back months on these boards. When did I say "Those People?" You seem to think this is about me looking down on people and generalizing them rather than refuting Ken's argument that Democrats nominated Trump. You're misunderstanding the context of my statements. Analyzing the historical presidential voting habits of a demographic isn't cherrypicking when the entire discussion is about how that demographic is voting in this year's presidential election.

[ammythomas30]

until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that...my... brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac .......

........ http://www.jobprofit9.com

[ammythomas30]

until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that...my... brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac .......

........ http://www.jobprofit9.com

[OneOut]

This thread would be more fun if Trump grabbed some pussy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yuj5oI_fGkA

[nnm73239]

Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this...You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer...I'm Loving it!!!!
????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

[Cain44]

Peyton . even though Billy `s report is cool... on monday I got a gorgeous Maserati after I been earnin $8985 thiss month and even more than ten k lass month . it's certainly the easiest work Ive ever had . I started this 9-months ago and practically straight away started bringin home at least $78 per-hr . look at this now

................ http://www.jobhub44.com

[Cain44]

Peyton . even though Billy `s report is cool... on monday I got a gorgeous Maserati after I been earnin $8985 thiss month and even more than ten k lass month . it's certainly the easiest work Ive ever had . I started this 9-months ago and practically straight away started bringin home at least $78 per-hr . look at this now

................ http://www.jobhub44.com

[Cain44]

Peyton . even though Billy `s report is cool... on monday I got a gorgeous Maserati after I been earnin $8985 thiss month and even more than ten k lass month . it's certainly the easiest work Ive ever had . I started this 9-months ago and practically straight away started bringin home at least $78 per-hr . look at this now

................ http://www.jobhub44.com

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Ivanka Trump said "My dad is not a groper".

OK, is he an orange roghy?

[jfh15071]

Matthew . I can see what your saying... Bobby `s storry is surprising, last saturday I got a brand new Land Rover Defender since I been making $4556 this past 5 weeks and more than ten-grand this past-month . this is definitely my favourite-job I have ever had . I began this 4 months ago and immediately made more than $71 per-hr . More Info
????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

[Longtobefree]

Sorry for everyone, and the country, but they are both qualified:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen
of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this
Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall
not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been
fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

[vbg64454]

Bella . I can see what your saying... Jesus `s blurb is good, on wednesday I bought a new Lotus Elan after making $9196 this last 4 weeks an would you believe 10/k lass month . this is really the nicest work I've ever done . I started this 5 months ago and almost straight away brought home minimum $73.. per hour . read
????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

[vjm10172]

Anna . I see what you mean... Virginia `s postlng is incredible, last tuesday I got a new Audi Quattro after having made $5000 this last 5 weeks and over 10k this past month . without a doubt it is the coolest work I have ever had . I started this seven months/ago and pretty much immediately started making minimum $85 per hour . view it
????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

[ammythomas12]

Liliana . if you think Lawrence `s blog is incredible, I just purchased a new Honda after earning $5741 this - 4 weeks past and also 10 grand lass month . it's by-far the most-comfortable job I have ever done . I started this four months/ago and almost immediately began to make minimum $85... p/h .

see this................ http://www.BuzzNews10.com

[www.great.jobs14.com]

Facebook Create a job in 2016 for every user just using facebook account
for 2-3hr.I am check this is nice job first hr i earn 180$ and last my eaning balance is 345$ per hour.
???????? http://www.great.jobs14.com

[Rose Chandler]

until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that...my... brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac .......

.................. http://www.jobprofit9.com

[ammythomas80]

until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that...my... brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac .......

........ http://www.jobprofit9.com

[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.