Americans who voted against Trump are feeling unprecedented dread and despair

[agent00f]

Does anybody here ever understand what agen00f says?

You appear to understand and agree with what I'm saying perfectly fine, even if playing dumb comes naturally.

 

[agent00f]

He's just preaching divisiveness & hatred from the other side. It's not constructive. Fear & hatred beget fear & hatred.

I think it's pretty obvious what playing the prisoner's dilemma much worse than even the supposed naive idiots has brought the democrats.

 

[Kazukian]

No, it's pretty funny how much your white power crowd has to deny what it believes in.

Damn, we've been caught folks, the race baiting slime has figured out we're all white supremacists.

Give it a fucking rest, I've seen you post more racially charged shit than any other single member.

Does anybody here ever understand what agen00f says?

He's less educated than most Trump voters, don't expect miracles from an angry troll.

Seriously, look at what he posts, it's all insults, he doesn't add to the conversation, he demeans us all.

 

[fskimospy]

You appear to understand and agree with what I'm saying perfectly fine, even if playing dumb comes naturally.

It is odd how he seems to be having a problem with what you said and then links to an image that backs what you said up.

 

[agent00f]

Damn, we've been caught folks, the race baiting slime has figured out we're all white supremacists.

Give it a fucking rest, I've seen you post more racially charged shit than any other single member.

He's less educated than most Trump voters [eg Kazukian], don't expect miracles from an angry troll.

Seriously, look at what he posts, it's all insults, he doesn't add to the conversation, he demeans us all.

LOL @ dunning kruger posterchild.

 

[agent00f]

It is odd how he seems to be having a problem with what you said and then links to an image that backs what you said up.

No wonder Bannon says the trumpster brain trust are the smart ones.

 

[fskimospy]

LOL @ dunning kruger posterchild.

Now now, we both know Kazukian is just a concerned Democrat. A very, very concerned Democrat.

 

[agent00f]

Now now, we both know Kazukian is just a concerned Democrat. A very, very concerned Democrat.

As enticing as it is to think he claims I have a ged due to complete lack of mental prowess, it's better explained by the fact he's a pathological liar with zero integrity. No great surprise many conservatives here identify with him/that.

 

[momeNt]

Now now, we both know Kazukian is just a concerned Democrat. A very, very concerned Democrat.

Was that a Trump "very, very"? If so well played.

 

[fskimospy]

As enticing as it is to think he claims I have a ged due to complete lack of mental prowess, it's better explained by the fact he's a pathological liar with zero integrity. No great surprise many conservatives here identify with him/that.

Oh I mean he's been hardcore concern trolling from his first post here. I view it more as him trying (and failing) to play a character.

 

[agent00f]

Oh I mean he's been hardcore concern trolling from his first post here. I view it more as him trying (and failing) to play a character.

Frankly there's no real shortage of folks like that IRL, ie no real need to cook up that level of degeneracy. Except IRL people are forced to react more kindly to it so it works better.

 

[Kazukian]

LOL, proved my point perfectly.

 

[Jhhnn]

First bears my looking into. Are these full time perm jobs? I need to see methodology to be more informed.

If you read what I and Biden said it was clearly a main driver. Here were my exact words.



Note I never said "the only reason", but Biden mentioned that one in particular and so it was a major and perhaps greatest motivation. Look at Joe's comments and find a basis for that not being the case at least in his opinion. I have no reason to believe anyone here knows her better than he nor do I believe it's a grand conspiracy. Remember I don't like Hillary but "that's the only possible consideration" isn't my style. It's a lot of things and Joe more or less is thinking along my lines, which includes the idea that if Hillary had other motivations she failed to communicate them sufficiently to convince enough people to elect her.

That being the case, where is Joe wrong?

[/QUOTE]

It's amusing how all this going on about Hillary being a bad candidate is merely a way for conservatives to make excuses for Trump's victory. She wasn't a bad candidate. Repubs just managed to tear her down far enough that Trump could win by a quirk of the EC. Putin gave 'em a helping hand. Spreading the FUD works.

Y'all voted for him. Now you get to own it. Trump promised to break the system, meaning the govt. Repubs have been tearing it down for decades. What do you think we'll get, other than a lot of misery at the hands of the greediest people on the planet?

 

[agent00f]

LOL, proved my point perfectly.

Doesn't seem like you're enjoying these accurate descriptions of your sort's nature.

 

[realibrad]

It's amusing how all this going on about Hillary being a bad candidate is merely a way for conservatives to make excuses for Trump's victory. She wasn't a bad candidate. Repubs just managed to tear her down far enough that Trump could win by a quirk of the EC. Putin gave 'em a helping hand. Spreading the FUD works.

Y'all voted for him. Now you get to own it. Trump promised to break the system, meaning the govt. Repubs have been tearing it down for decades. What do you think we'll get, other than a lot of misery at the hands of the greediest people on the planet?

Hillary was a bad candidate. She lost far more votes than Trump gained, and those were previous D votes. Many of the votes she lost did not go to Trump, they were just non votes because they disliked her and him.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...a/clintons-negatives-are-higher-than-obamas-/

http://www.gallup.com/poll/193913/clinton-image-lowest-point-two-decades.aspx

She has had high negatives for a while. It was not Trump that built that, it was built long ago. Obama exploited it back in his day too.

 

[agent00f]

Hillary was a bad candidate. She lost far more votes than Trump gained, and those were previous D votes. Many of the votes she lost did not go to Trump, they were just non votes because they disliked her and him.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...a/clintons-negatives-are-higher-than-obamas-/

http://www.gallup.com/poll/193913/clinton-image-lowest-point-two-decades.aspx

She has had high negatives for a while. It was not Trump that built that, it was built long ago. Obama exploited it back in his day too.

Funny given she got as many votes as Obama.

 

[fskimospy]

Hillary was a bad candidate. She lost far more votes than Trump gained, and those were previous D votes. Many of the votes she lost did not go to Trump, they were just non votes because they disliked her and him.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...a/clintons-negatives-are-higher-than-obamas-/

http://www.gallup.com/poll/193913/clinton-image-lowest-point-two-decades.aspx

She has had high negatives for a while. It was not Trump that built that, it was built long ago. Obama exploited it back in his day too.

Any reason you left out the time period between your two links where she was the most positively viewed major politician in the country? Doesn't that kind of blow up your theory?

Her negatives swung wildly primarily due to the atmosphere of negative partisanship that exists in this country. Watch, the next presidential candidates will see their popularity dramatically decline when the election nears too.

 

[cubby1223]

It is odd how he seems to be having a problem with what you said and then links to an image that backs what you said up.

You are hopeless. Seriously, how did you ever become an elite member? You're not fit for the title. Image shows (1) Trump has good support throughout all income levels - the difference between the highest and lowest brackets is 7%, & (2) only marginal lead in high income support. Your partisan bias is just incomprehensible.

Seriously, is trolling on internet forums your main source of joy in the world? Pathetic you are.

 

[realibrad]

Funny given she got as many votes as Obama.

Only if you look at the 2012 numbers, and even then the same issue holds true. In 2008, Obama got 69.4 million votes. In 2012 he got 65.9 million. Hillary got 65.8 million. That said, Hillary lost the % of the demographics. So if 50% of a group had voted for Obama, and that group grew in numbers, she should have gained more votes if she also got 50%. What ended up happening is that she lost some of the % of that group, and retained the nominal number of votes of that group.

 

[fskimospy]

You are hopeless. Seriously, how did you ever become an elite member? You're not fit for the title. Image shows (1) Trump has good support throughout all income levels, & (2) only marginal lead in high income support. Your partisan bias is just incomprehensible.

So to be clear, you saw someone say that Trump supporters had relatively high income, decided to dispute that by linking something that proved him correct, and then declared other people hopeless for pointing out that you owned yourself? Something's incomprehensible here, all right, lol.

Can I say how funny I find it that you are clearly enraged by me being an elite member here? You are literally the only person I have ever noticed caring about that on here, myself included. Regardless since it clearly is a Very Serious Issue to you considering the number of times you've brought it up I think you should petition the moderators to rescind my glorious and undeserved title immediately. THIS CANNOT STAND.

 

[realibrad]

Any reason you left out the time period between your two links where she was the most positively viewed major politician in the country? Doesn't that kind of blow up your theory?

Her negatives swung wildly primarily due to the atmosphere of negative partisanship that exists in this country. Watch, the next presidential candidates will see their popularity dramatically decline when the election nears too.

I did not include them for any real reason. It should be pretty clear though that her positive rating was during a time when she was not running and simply doing her job as Secretary of State. If you look at when her ratings fall, they happen around election years.

Any time an election year comes up, her dirty laundry is brought up. She does great when people judge her for doing her job, but horrible when her past is thrown at people. That is why it tanked after 1999, tanked in 07, and tanked against Trump. Obama made her SoS and she shot up because she was seen as doing a good job. Once we got close to election, bengazi and all that BS.

So no, I was not trying to hid anything, and Im not making the argument she was worse than Trump or even close really. That does not mean she was a good candidate because she had big weaknesses that not only the Right used, but even Obama used. My opinion is that when you are in politics that long, it holds you back because you have to get down in the mud and make imperfect choices.

 

[fskimospy]

I did not include them for any real reason. It should be pretty clear though that her positive rating was during a time when she was not running and simply doing her job as Secretary of Stage. If you look at when her ratings fall, they happen around election years.

Any time an election year comes up, her dirty laundry is brought up. She does great when people judge her for doing her job, but horrible when her past is thrown at people. That is why it tanked after 1999, tanked in 07, and tanked against Trump. Obama made her SoS and she shot up because she was seen as doing a good job. Once we got close to election, bengazi and all that BS.

So no, I was not trying to hid anything, and Im not making the argument she was worse than Trump or even close really. That does not mean she was a good candidate because she had big weaknesses that not only the Right used, but even Obama used. My opinion is that when you are in politics that long, it holds you back because you have to get down in the mud and make imperfect choices.

While I agree that the longer you spend in politics the more it will probably hurt you my strong suspicion is that negative partisanship has DRAMATICALLY increased in recent years and whoever is nominated will be similarly unpopular, regardless of who they are. Maybe Clinton will still end up a bit more unpopular, but I imagine they will be similar. I don't think it's because people are reminded about dirty laundry, I think it's because people are primarily governed by partisanship.

 

[momeNt]

You are hopeless. Seriously, how did you ever become an elite member? You're not fit for the title. Image shows (1) Trump has good support throughout all income levels - the difference between the highest and lowest brackets is 7%, & (2) only marginal lead in high income support. Your partisan bias is just incomprehensible.

Seriously, is trolling on internet forums your main source of joy in the world? Pathetic you are.

If anything, he is the most well-sourced and reasoned liberal on this forum, he of all people deserves the elite title because he doesn't partisan shitpost like a lot of us.

 

[Paratus]

Here's an interesting focus group Planned Parenthood did of Trump voters who also support PP in swing states.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...he_trump_resistance.html#lf_comment=625626465

Some voted for him because they felt he was more honest than Hillary.

I really didn’t trust Hillary at all, and that’s why I went with Trump,” said a new mother in Harrisburg who’d been undecided until the last moment. “He’s more honest than her.

Some felt fine voting for him because while defunding PP was a deal breaker for them he was obviously saying things he didn't mean:

But many of the people in the focus groups didn’t know he’d made this assurance (to defund PP), and those who did didn’t take it seriously. It seemed as if Trump’s lasciviousness, which Clinton hoped would disqualify Trump with women, actually worked in his favor. The focus group participants couldn’t imagine that Trump would enact a religious right agenda. “He’s probably paid for a few abortions himself,” said the 58-year-old in Phoenix, eliciting a roomful of laughs.

In fact many are certain he will defend PP:

In several focus groups, the moderator asked if people expected Trump to veto a defunding bill, and most hands went up.

Although some voters were just unacquainted with the positions of the people Trump surrounds himself with.

The majority of people in the focus groups knew little about the intense social conservatism of people Trump has surrounded himself with. Shown a document listing Vice President–elect Pence’s legislative history on reproductive rights, a 54-year-old man in Phoenix said: “I’m astounded. I guess I’ve been living in a bubble. I wasn’t aware of this. He sounds like a tyrant when it comes to this.”

So how do we reconcile this? These voters see Trump as someone who is going to uphold reproductive rights. The Atreus's of the world see him has someone who is going to rein in reproductive rights.

Some voters see him as supporting the little guy. Others see him as supporting the 1%.

Some of these people are going to have significant.buyers remorse.

 

[realibrad]

While I agree that the longer you spend in politics the more it will probably hurt you my strong suspicion is that negative partisanship has DRAMATICALLY increased in recent years and whoever is nominated will be similarly unpopular, regardless of who they are. Maybe Clinton will still end up a bit more unpopular, but I imagine they will be similar. I don't think it's because people are reminded about dirty laundry, I think it's because people are primarily governed by partisanship.

Then you have to explain how hers went up against Obama. Remember, he did the same thing just to a much lesser extent. He went way softer on her because he worried about the damage to the party. Trump being Trump and also not a Democrat meant he had no worries of anything other than winning.
I think you are right in that negative partisanship has increased. Right now being in politics makes you radioactive on a national stage.