10 Emotional Abuse Tactics That Trump Blatantly Used in the First Debate
The current United States presidential election has many people on edge.
Therapists around the country are reporting spikes in patients dealing with election anxiety. Clinical psychologist Stephen Holland told The Atlantic, “Among people who are not Trump supporters, we’re hearing a higher level of concern and dismay than I’ve probably heard in any election cycle, in 25 years of clinical work.”
Self reporter Haley Goldberg even described the feeling as “right in my chest, a tightening sensation that sent adrenaline through the rest of my body. It felt like I was gearing up to run away from a bear. But, unfortunately, I couldn’t physically run away from the source of my anxiety: Election 2016.”
Political Anxiety Disorder, says the Wall Street Journal, is definitely a thing. Although this may ring true in all elections, this time the anxiety is different. This time, one of the primary causes is Donald Trump.
For some people, the anxiety comes from Trump’s proposed policies, which include banning all Muslims, and building a wall between Mexico because, in his view, all Mexicans are rapists.
For many others, though, the language and rhetoric coming out of the elections isn’t just about policy, but is actually personal.
One Mexican-American young woman named Carmen created a powerful video in which she responds to the fear that she has felt since hearing Trump’s attacks on Mexicans. “To witness a prominent politician speaking on national television saying these things to a cheering crowd is just unreal,” she says. “Am I supposed to feel ashamed of myself? Or where I come from? It had me questioning my heritage.”
Another woman named Tali Liben Yarmush described the shame that Trump evokes when he calls women fat, or when he described Rosie O’Donnell as a “pig.” “It is not meaningless to me that a man who is running for president thinks it is okay to tell a woman he disagrees with that she is a ‘fat pig,’” she writes.
“Do you not think it will affect some other young and impressionable girl when she hears him say that one of his opponents was too ugly to be president? What kind of message are we sending to children when we tell them it’s okay to call people we don’t like ‘disgusting,’ or to tell them they have the ‘face of a dog?’”
The reason why this year’s election has caused a heightened and exacerbated sense of anxiety among many people is because Trump’s language is not your typical political rhetoric. In fact, the language he employs comes straight out the handbook of toxic masculinity.
That is, he uses toxic tactics of emotional abuse – especially emotional abuse aimed at women – in order to put other people down. The tactics are powerful, emotionally violent, and often disarming against their victims.
For many people who have lived with abusers, this election brings back terrifying memories. As author Pam Houston, a survivor of child abuse, wrote, “Maybe it’s because I grew up in my father’s house that I can see Trump so clearly for what he is. A desperately insecure bully, with no moral center – no center of any kind really – who feels momentarily powerful only when he is able to break those unlucky enough to step into his path.”
If you’re not accustomed to identifying and recognizing these tactics as abusive, they can leave you with unexplained emotional tremors. And if you are used to them – that is, if you’re a survivor of emotional abuse – watching this happen in public can be triggering and frightening.
One of the best ways to deal with emotional abuse is to shed light on the toxic tactics. Even when the abuse is leveled vaguely at entire groups from a public podium – as opposed to you personally in the privacy of your home – the first crucial step to identify what is happening, and to name the tactics for what they are.
With the goal in mind of shedding light on emotionally abusive strategies, here are ten of the toxic tactics that Trump has been using during this campaign, including some examples from the recent debate.
1. Lying
Trump is an expert at lying straight into the camera. Even when there is clear proof or recorded evidence, he will often lie without flinching.
The New York Times called Trump “Lord of the Lies.” The Washington Post wrote that “Donald Trump must be the biggest liar in the history of American politics, and that’s saying something. Trump lies the way other people breathe. We’re used to politicians who stretch the truth, who waffle or dissemble, who emphasize some facts while omitting others. But I can’t think of any other political figure who so brazenly tells lie after lie, spraying audiences with such a fusillade of untruths that it is almost impossible to keep track.”
Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact, which conducted the most comprehensive fact-check of presidential candidates in the 2016 election, found that Trump has more statements in the notorious “pants on fire” category than all 21 other candidates combined.
“How can we discuss the economy when Trump suggests that the unemployment rate, just under 5%, is actually 42%? Or debate the Paris climate accord, when Trump falsely claims it ‘gives foreign bureaucrats control over how much energy we use on our land?’ Or deal with terrorism, after Trump said he knows ‘more about ISIS than the generals?’” asks Timothy Egan at The New York Times.
In this week’s debate, for example, moderator Lester Holt confronted Trump with the fact that the police policy “stop and frisk” was ruled unconstitutional by a US district court. Trump yelled, “That’s not true,” even though it was exactly true.
It’s extremely difficult to have a normal conversation with someone for whom facts and truth are irrelevant. This is one of the first and most disarming tactics of an emotional abuser.
It’s the twisting of facts and thus the elimination of basic rules of fair discourse.
2. Denial
Related to lying is denying.
In the debate, for example, Trump denied several recorded facts about himself – such as the fact that he supported the Iraq war, that he said Clinton didn’t have a “presidential look,” and that he ever claimed that global warming was a hoax.
All of these facts are easily verified, yet Trump continued to deny them and ignored the facts and the moderator.
In July, 2016, PoliFact began tracking how many times Trump said one thing and then denied it. The seventeen instances they came up with then included denying that he called women names like “fat pigs” and “dogs” and “slobs,” denying that he cast doubts on John McCain’s status as a war hero, denying that he offered to pay legal fees for people who beat up protesters, and denying that he knows Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.
Denial, like lying, changes the rules of fair discourse. It makes it very difficult for the abuser to be held accountable for their words when they says whatever they wants and then refuse to continue to engage about it.
Denial, like lying, is one of the key tactics of toxic abuse.
3. Blame Shifting
In one of the first and most important books on verbal abuse, The Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense written by the late Suzette Eldin in 1980, one of the central toxic tactics named is blame.
Trump has mastered this technique and completely incorporates it to such an extent that nothing is ever his fault. Whatever the problem is, Trump finds a way to blame others.
When he was asked about the many small businesses that he stiffed while he built his business empire, he blamed the business owners. “Maybe they just didn’t do a good job,” he said.
This is his approach to policy as well. When he was asked in the debate about the American economy, for example, he replied that the fault is with China, who he said, “is stealing American jobs.” Even right after the debate, when he received reports that Clinton “won,” his first response was to blame his supposedly defective microphone.
Perhaps the most outrageous example was when he was asked about why he spent so many years fueling the birther movement and repeatedly claiming that President Obama wasn’t born in America. His response: It was Clinton’s fault.
Yes. Despite a clear public record in which he spent years giving speeches and interviews to spread this lie and delegitimize the president, when confronted about it, he tried to completely blame Clinton instead of taking responsibility for his own actions.
This response actually incorporates all three of these tactics together – lying, denying, and blame-shifting.
Trump’s tactic of blame is especially aimed at Clinton, who he blamed for almost every issue that came up in the debate. He effectively said that the government has failed in everything it has done for thirty years while she represented The Entire Government. At one point, Clinton even quipped, “I’m pretty sure that by the end of the night, I will have been blamed for everything that ever happened.”
Yes, that was exactly Trump’s intention. Indeed, he responded, “Why not?”
Blame-shifting, like the previous tactics, makes it extremely difficult to have a discussion. It also has the effect of making the person it’s wielded against feel defensive and angry, desperate to clear their name and get back to the truth.
4. Moving the Goal Posts
This is a sophisticated tactic in which the manipulator, in order to avoid having to answer for an issue, will redefine the goals of the exchange. It aims to “humiliate the victim, to keep them preoccupied so as to accomplish nothing else with their time, or to simply wear them out.”
Trump does this relentlessly, and did it several times in the debate, to such an extent that the moderator occasionally tried to bring him back to the subject at hand.
So, for example, in the discussion on creating jobs, Trump turned what should have been a discussion of his plan to an attack on Clinton’s “thirty years of experience” in politics. Trump supporters have done this often regarding Trump’s record on women, by using the topic to attack Clinton about her husband’s record on women.
Fox News regularly employs this tactic as well, such as this clip in which they defend Trump’s record on women by avoiding it, and instead creating a replacement story about the New York Times’ record on gender discrimination, as well as Bill Clinton.
5. Bait and Switch
This is a tactic, similar to moving the goal posts, in which a manipulator pretends to be talking about one issue in order to end up talking about what he really wants to say.
So, for example, when pressed on the issue of releasing his tax returns, Trump shifted the conversation to talk about Clinton’s e-mails: “I will release my tax returns when Hillary releases her deleted e-mails” – to which the audience, astoundingly, cheered.
Clinton even called it out at the time, saying, “I think we just witnessed a bait and switch.”
6. Projecting
This is a tactic in which the manipulator accuses the victim of doing exactly what he is being accused of. Trump does this with astonishing efficiency.
For example, he has created an entire campaign around the idea that Clinton is the most dishonest politician in history, despite the fact that he is actually the most dishonest man in American politics today.
Jill Abramson, the former Executive Editor of The New York Times says that her research concluded that “Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.” In a country in which 40% of the people consider Clinton untrustworthy, Abramson herself was surprised to discover such a huge gap between perception and reality.
But that’s a function of how skilled Trump has been at projecting – giving someone else the label of “dishonest” to avoid how dishonest he himself is.
Even more challenging is the projecting manipulations around accusations about his treatment of women.
Despite his appalling record on his treatment of women, whenever he’s confronted about it, he switches the conversation to talk about how “not nice” women are to him.
He did this in the Republican debate earlier this year when Megyn Kelly asked him about his record on women and he told her that she was being “not nice” to him. He did it again in this debate, turning the discussion around to talk about how “not nice” Clinton is for her campaign against him – on his record on women.
This tactic, in which the abusive one asserts that the victim is “not nice,” is related to moving the goal posts – and it is an incredibly manipulative tactic and can be very difficult to deal with.
7. Generalizing and Exaggerating
One of the main differences between Clinton and Trump has to do with attention to detail.
Clinton has over ten times as many policy pages on her website than Trump, and her speeches are filled with details about her proposals and plans. Trump, by contrast, prefers grandiose generalization and hyperbole.
His speeches are filled with language such as “it’s a disaster,” “this is tremendous,” “we are in a big, fat, ugly bubble,” “it’s unbelievable,” and “it’s the greatest.” He also loves to use language of “everyone” and “always.” He cushions many of his egregious claims with statements like “everyone tells me” – a claim that is very difficult to prove or disprove or fact-check.
Generalizing is also one of the classic abusive patterns that Suzette Eldin pointed to over 35 years ago.
8. Yelling and Shouting Over
In the debate, it was easy to see how Trump was constantly shouting over Clinton. He interrupted her no less than fifty times. He repeatedly refused to stop talking when the moderator told him there was no more time, he interrupted Clinton even when she was given only a small amount of time to answer, and he refused to ever let Clinton have the last word.
He would speak into the microphone while it was her turn, literally yelling over her in order to be heard.
This is typical of toxic manipulators and abusers for whom voice is a tool of violence. They use their voices as weapons in order to ensure that their voices are the ones heard most.
9. Fear-Mongering
In most of the key issues in the campaign, Trump’s approach feeds into fear-mongering.
In discussions about race, for example, he said that the police are “afraid to do anything.” He aims to make his audiences terrified of Mexicans, Muslims, African Americans, Iran, ISIS, and China.
Almost all of his platforms incite fear.
This is a very powerful tactic of manipulation, as it is very hard to fight back in an atmosphere of terror.
10. Body Shaming
Trump has a particularly troubling history of body-shaming women, and was widely panned for body-shaming Megyn Kelly about “blood coming out of her wherever” during one of the Republican debates.
Although he did not directly body-shame Clinton (or the moderator) this week, he did slip in an undetected body-shaming comment. During the discussion about cyber-terrorists, he said, “It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, okay?”
Body-shaming is a debilitating tactic that can have severe impacts, causing a person to be too humiliated to speak, advocate, or appear in public.
***
These are some of the toxic tactics of emotional and verbal abuse that are becoming normalized in the 2016 elections – which only goes to show how acceptable we, as a society, allow toxic masculinity to be.
TRUMP: "Other than CNN, which is meaningless, because it's a Democratic poll... I won every other poll easily. I won CBS."
COLBERT: "Yeah. He won the CBS poll. That's impressive. Except for the fact that CBS did not conduct a post-debate poll... what are the odds, the one poll you win doesn't exist!"
Arizona Republic has never endorsed a Democrat since 1890...until this year. Yet another conservative newspaper turning their back on The Donald.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/arizona-republic-endorses-hillary-clinton-130844433.html
2 of the key paragraphs follow:
Since The Arizona Republic began publication in 1890, we have never endorsed a Democrat over a Republican for president. Never. This reflects a deep philosophical appreciation for conservative ideals and Republican principles. This year is different. The 2016 Republican candidate is not conservative and he is not qualified,” the editorial said.
“Trump’s inability to control himself or be controlled by others represents a real threat to our national security. His recent efforts to stay on script are not reassuring. They are phony. The president commands our nuclear arsenal. Trump can’t command his own rhetoric,” the paper opined.
Arizona Republic has never endorsed a Democrat since 1890...until this year. Yet another conservative newspaper turning their back on The Donald.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/arizona-republic-endorses-hillary-clinton-130844433.html
2 of the key paragraphs follow:
Since The Arizona Republic began publication in 1890, we have never endorsed a Democrat over a Republican for president. Never. This reflects a deep philosophical appreciation for conservative ideals and Republican principles. This year is different. The 2016 Republican candidate is not conservative and he is not qualified,” the editorial said.
“Trump’s inability to control himself or be controlled by others represents a real threat to our national security. His recent efforts to stay on script are not reassuring. They are phony. The president commands our nuclear arsenal. Trump can’t command his own rhetoric,” the paper opined.
Right on point. But I wonder how many Trump supporters actually read newspapers?
For the life of me, with so many high profile Republicans against Trump, and with several conservative newspapers endorsing Clinton, I find it amazing that this race is as close as it is. It seems like regardless of anything, Trump supporters just don't care and will overlook everything he does to support their idol. Those that hate both Trump or Hillary just don't care enough to take sides, and although most seem to dislike Trump more their staying home or voting third party might just make the difference for Trump.
For the life of me, with so many high profile Republicans against Trump, and with several conservative newspapers endorsing Clinton, I find it amazing that this race is as close as it is. It seems like regardless of anything, Trump supporters just don't care and will overlook everything he does to support their idol. Those that hate both Trump or Hillary just don't care enough to take sides, and although most seem to dislike Trump more their staying home or voting third party might just make the difference for Trump.
Agree. If that becomes reality, then the electorate is more to blame than Trump. They may have buyers' remorse very quickly assuming they know or can understand what is happening around them.
Holt asked the wrong candidate about birtherism, a vital issue. But why ask Trump when the very founder of the movement was standing directly to his left?
Did you eat a lot of paint chips as a child?
For the life of me, with so many high profile Republicans against Trump, and with several conservative newspapers endorsing Clinton, I find it amazing that this race is as close as it is. It seems like regardless of anything, Trump supporters just don't care and will overlook everything he does to support their idol. Those that hate both Trump or Hillary just don't care enough to take sides, and although most seem to dislike Trump more their staying home or voting third party might just make the difference for Trump.
I was just talking about this with my wife this morning. It is baffling that this race is even close. More baffling is that in my daily life I have never run into anyone who said they are a Trump supporter, yet my state is polling as a dead heat. The other thing I noticed is that political yard signs are starting to pop up in my area, yet I have not seen any for Trump or Clinton, only for state and local candidates. Are the presidential signs not available yet or are people just embarrassed to display their candidate's name? The whole thing is odd.
I am also concerned about the possible effect of 3rd party voting and I encourage people, especially those who live in swing states, to think long and hard before going that route. My wife thinks Trump is despicable but says she can't bring herself to pull the lever for Hillary so she is going vote 3rd party. I understand how she feels, but I tried to explain to her that although I am not a Clinton fan I think I need to do everything I can to keep Trump from taking my state so I will be voting for Hillary.
Holt asked the wrong candidate about birtherism, a vital issue. But why ask Trump when the very founder of the movement was standing directly to his left?
Did you eat a lot of paint chips as a child?
The red chips can cause significantly more long term damage than the blue ones. Any cause & effect here?
If you are trying to tell me there's no difference between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, just like all those other times you're tried, you'll never convince me.
Yes, what they say at election time is different. What they do when it's al said and done is no different. Two sides of the same coin, it's right there for all who want to see it, can see it.
,
Been that way for decades. I'm sorry you cannot grasp the concept.Kinda arrogant of you, Brother Jamez
Why is calling people on their B/S arrogant ?
In the 17 plus years, I've frequented this board and the old one. It has been the same ol crap. Just the names change with every election cycle. Be it those running for office or those on this board foaming at the mouth with innuendo, platitude, or insult. It is so predictable.
Yeah, I've been saying this same ol crap for years as well. So who am I to say anything, right ?
I guess you've been caught up in what is important to you to miss that pattern. Only goes to show, when the majority perspective matches your own, you don't have to be blind to not see what is really going on.
Well, hopefully I'll be able to figure it all out.
For the life of me, with so many high profile Republicans against Trump, and with several conservative newspapers endorsing Clinton, I find it amazing that this race is as close as it is. It seems like regardless of anything, Trump supporters just don't care and will overlook everything he does to support their idol. Those that hate both Trump or Hillary just don't care enough to take sides, and although most seem to dislike Trump more their staying home or voting third party might just make the difference for Trump.
I was just talking about this with my wife this morning. It is baffling that this race is even close. More baffling is that in my daily life I have never run into anyone who said they are a Trump supporter, yet my state is polling as a dead heat. The other thing I noticed is that political yard signs are starting to pop up in my area, yet I have not seen any for Trump or Clinton, only for state and local candidates. Are the presidential signs not available yet or are people just embarrassed to display their candidate's name? The whole thing is odd.
I am also concerned about the possible effect of 3rd party voting and I encourage people, especially those who live in swing states, to think long and hard before going that route. My wife thinks Trump is despicable but says she can't bring herself to pull the lever for Hillary so she is going vote 3rd party. I understand how she feels, but I tried to explain to her that although I am not a Clinton fan I think I need to do everything I can to keep Trump from taking my state so I will be voting for Hillary.
Yard signs are indeed available!
Depending on which set of polls and models one looks at, it's still not that much of a dead heat. Trump still has work to do.
For the life of me, with so many high profile Republicans against Trump, and with several conservative newspapers endorsing Clinton, I find it amazing that this race is as close as it is. It seems like regardless of anything, Trump supporters just don't care and will overlook everything he does to support their idol. Those that hate both Trump or Hillary just don't care enough to take sides, and although most seem to dislike Trump more their staying home or voting third party might just make the difference for Trump.
I was just talking about this with my wife this morning. It is baffling that this race is even close. More baffling is that in my daily life I have never run into anyone who said they are a Trump supporter, yet my state is polling as a dead heat. The other thing I noticed is that political yard signs are starting to pop up in my area, yet I have not seen any for Trump or Clinton, only for state and local candidates. Are the presidential signs not available yet or are people just embarrassed to display their candidate's name? The whole thing is odd.
I am also concerned about the possible effect of 3rd party voting and I encourage people, especially those who live in swing states, to think long and hard before going that route. My wife thinks Trump is despicable but says she can't bring herself to pull the lever for Hillary so she is going vote 3rd party. I understand how she feels, but I tried to explain to her that although I am not a Clinton fan I think I need to do everything I can to keep Trump from taking my state so I will be voting for Hillary.
Yard signs are indeed available!
Depending on which set of polls and models one looks at, it's still not that much of a dead heat. Trump still has work to do.
Are you seeing the signs displayed in your area? Here it's just local judges, state senators, county commissioners, etc. I think people are afraid to display a presidential sign.
The dead-heat polling I was talking about was specifically for my state of NC. I always look at the Real Clear Politics averages, which right now show Trump leading NC by 0.3%. It has gone back and forth, always by small margins, for many months. As long as that remains the case I will feel compelled to vote for Clinton. If it was clear that NC would go one way or the other I would vote for Johnson.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nc/north_carolina_trump_vs_clinton-5538.html
Are you seeing the signs displayed in your area? Here it's just local judges, state senators, county commissioners, etc. I think people are afraid to display a presidential sign.
I am seeing them here in Maine, and it is interesting because I live in Maine's congressional district 1 (southern Maine, leans left, not as rural and more transplants i.e. people from other states) and work in Maine's congressional district 2 (Northern Maine, leans right, more rural). Passing from one to the other is almost like going to a different country. You can see this reflected in the lawn signs (no shortage of Trump signs in CD2) RCP poll recap in both the POTUS and congressional races:
Are you seeing the signs displayed in your area? Here it's just local judges, state senators, county commissioners, etc. I think people are afraid to display a presidential sign.
I am seeing them here in Maine, and it is interesting because I live in Maine's congressional district 1 (southern Maine, leans left, not as rural and more transplants i.e. people from other states) and work in Maine's congressional district 2 (Northern Maine, leans right, more rural). Passing from one to the other is almost like going to a different country. You can see this reflected in the lawn signs (no shortage of Trump signs in CD2) RCP poll recap in both the POTUS and congressional races:
I'll bet there are more Mensa members in CD1 than CD2.
For the life of me, with so many high profile Republicans against Trump, and with several conservative newspapers endorsing Clinton, I find it amazing that this race is as close as it is. It seems like regardless of anything, Trump supporters just don't care and will overlook everything he does to support their idol. Those that hate both Trump or Hillary just don't care enough to take sides, and although most seem to dislike Trump more their staying home or voting third party might just make the difference for Trump.
I was just talking about this with my wife this morning. It is baffling that this race is even close. More baffling is that in my daily life I have never run into anyone who said they are a Trump supporter, yet my state is polling as a dead heat. The other thing I noticed is that political yard signs are starting to pop up in my area, yet I have not seen any for Trump or Clinton, only for state and local candidates. Are the presidential signs not available yet or are people just embarrassed to display their candidate's name? The whole thing is odd.
I am also concerned about the possible effect of 3rd party voting and I encourage people, especially those who live in swing states, to think long and hard before going that route. My wife thinks Trump is despicable but says she can't bring herself to pull the lever for Hillary so she is going vote 3rd party. I understand how she feels, but I tried to explain to her that although I am not a Clinton fan I think I need to do everything I can to keep Trump from taking my state so I will be voting for Hillary.
Yard signs are indeed available!
Depending on which set of polls and models one looks at, it's still not that much of a dead heat. Trump still has work to do.
Are you seeing the signs displayed in your area? Here it's just local judges, state senators, county commissioners, etc. I think people are afraid to display a presidential sign.
The dead-heat polling I was talking about was specifically for my state of NC. I always look at the Real Clear Politics averages, which right now show Trump leading NC by 0.3%. It has gone back and forth, always by small margins, for many months. As long as that remains the case I will feel compelled to vote for Clinton. If it was clear that NC would go one way or the other I would vote for Johnson.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nc/north_carolina_trump_vs_clinton-5538.html
That makes sense. NC seems like pretty much a 50 50 state. Didn't Obama win in 2008 & Romney in 2012? I'd think the fallout over the brilliant governor down there and all the lost revenue due to his small mindedness / bigotry would have spilled over to the election at the prez level - maybe not?
Bob - Isn't McCrory up for reelection and running against the Attorney General? How is the polling in that election?
Bob - Isn't McCrory up for reelection and running against the Attorney General? How is the polling in that election?
Yes, right now RCP shows Attorney General Roy Cooper ahead of McCrory by 3.6%. I hope it holds.
Are you seeing the signs displayed in your area? Here it's just local judges, state senators, county commissioners, etc. I think people are afraid to display a presidential sign.
I am seeing them here in Maine, and it is interesting because I live in Maine's congressional district 1 (southern Maine, leans left, not as rural and more transplants i.e. people from other states) and work in Maine's congressional district 2 (Northern Maine, leans right, more rural). Passing from one to the other is almost like going to a different country. You can see this reflected in the lawn signs (no shortage of Trump signs in CD2) RCP poll recap in both the POTUS and congressional races:
I'll bet there are more Mensa members in CD1 than CD2.
No doubt.
For the life of me, with so many high profile Republicans against Trump, and with several conservative newspapers endorsing Clinton, I find it amazing that this race is as close as it is. It seems like regardless of anything, Trump supporters just don't care and will overlook everything he does to support their idol. Those that hate both Trump or Hillary just don't care enough to take sides, and although most seem to dislike Trump more their staying home or voting third party might just make the difference for Trump.
I was just talking about this with my wife this morning. It is baffling that this race is even close. More baffling is that in my daily life I have never run into anyone who said they are a Trump supporter, yet my state is polling as a dead heat. The other thing I noticed is that political yard signs are starting to pop up in my area, yet I have not seen any for Trump or Clinton, only for state and local candidates. Are the presidential signs not available yet or are people just embarrassed to display their candidate's name? The whole thing is odd.
I am also concerned about the possible effect of 3rd party voting and I encourage people, especially those who live in swing states, to think long and hard before going that route. My wife thinks Trump is despicable but says she can't bring herself to pull the lever for Hillary so she is going vote 3rd party. I understand how she feels, but I tried to explain to her that although I am not a Clinton fan I think I need to do everything I can to keep Trump from taking my state so I will be voting for Hillary.
Yard signs are indeed available!
Depending on which set of polls and models one looks at, it's still not that much of a dead heat. Trump still has work to do.
Are you seeing the signs displayed in your area? Here it's just local judges, state senators, county commissioners, etc. I think people are afraid to display a presidential sign.
The dead-heat polling I was talking about was specifically for my state of NC. I always look at the Real Clear Politics averages, which right now show Trump leading NC by 0.3%. It has gone back and forth, always by small margins, for many months. As long as that remains the case I will feel compelled to vote for Clinton. If it was clear that NC would go one way or the other I would vote for Johnson.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nc/north_carolina_trump_vs_clinton-5538.html
I'm not seeing yard signs either except for local races. My friends are split close to 50/50 between Trump supporters and Clinton supporters, which is kind of unusual considering I live in a very liberal area. My friends who are Trump supports are certainly not afraid to let everybody know that they are on the Trump train. My friends who are Clinton supporters are definitely more quiet about it. I think some of them just get tired of being called libritards and the like, so they just keep quiet about their opinion. There is definitely an enthusiasm gap, but there was in the Democratic primary as well and all of that enthusiasm didn't win Sanders the nomination, so you can't pick the winner on who yells loudest.
That was my first thought when I heard him say it. He just throws sh!t out there and sees if it sticks. What a tool.
If anyone thinks either one of these "boobs" are fit to lead our country , I've got some swamp land in Florida I'd like to sell you. These are the only candidates the Dem's and Repub's can come up with ?
Yikes! 😮 😮 😮 😮 😮 😮 😮God help us no matter who wins.
These are the candidates that the people who voted in the primaries or at their states caucuses. You had a chance to have your voice heard. Did you vote? No? Then you have nothing to complain about.
True to some degree. Please take into account the ARCHAIC system of primaries. If we MUST have primaries - why not have all of them on the same day? You cite whiney voters (present company included) for complaining about the quality of the candidates. Why is that some tiny places like New Hampshire and Rhode Island get to essentially vote out certain candidates before the rest of the nation even has the opportunity to cast a vote for them?
For what it's worth - I'm all for getting rid of the Electoral College - and for having a National Primary Day. I
I'm for Gary "____?_____ a foreign leader" Johnson . That guy is totally fried. He should run as a don't do cannabis advertisement
Bob, can he still count on your support?
These are the candidates that the people who voted in the primaries or at their states caucuses. You had a chance to have your voice heard. Did you vote? No? Then you have nothing to complain about.
I hear this a lot, but I disagree with this sentiment. If someone is disillusioned with the candidates, and the entire corrupt election process, then isn't it subjective as to how to most effectively improve the situation? Who is to say for sure that extreme low-voter turnout won't expedite change the fastest? The strongest catalyst for a company to improve is a drop in sales.
If anyone thinks either one of these "boobs" are fit to lead our country , I've got some swamp land in Florida I'd like to sell you. These are the only candidates the Dem's and Repub's can come up with ?
Yikes! 😮 😮 😮 😮 😮 😮 😮God help us no matter who wins.
These are the candidates that the people who voted in the primaries or at their states caucuses. You had a chance to have your voice heard. Did you vote? No? Then you have nothing to complain about.
True to some degree. Please take into account the ARCHAIC system of primaries. If we MUST have primaries - why not have all of them on the same day? You cite whiney voters (present company included) for complaining about the quality of the candidates. Why is that some tiny places like New Hampshire and Rhode Island get to essentially vote out certain candidates before the rest of the nation even has the opportunity to cast a vote for them?
For what it's worth - I'm all for getting rid of the Electoral College - and for having a National Primary Day.
The history of Presidential primaries is pretty interesting. The current system was pretty much created out of the troubles of the 1964 GOP convention and the 1968 Democratic convention, respectively. Before that, with a few exceptions, candidates were picked by the smoke-filled room process facilitated by party bosses. Primaries are first and foremost party functions, state-level party functions at that. The differences in primary processes varies from state-to-state, and the overall primary calendar is set by the respective national party committees. Then there's the different primary methods that vary from state-to-state...open, closed, caucus, blanket, etc.
As far as who gets knocked out early and all that, I've never been able to discern if that's because of the natural course of things, the media coverage, or both.
Getting rid of the Electoral College would certainly bode well for the travel budgets of the candidates, as the focus on population centers would be greater. How about changing the winner-take-all rule? Only Nebraska and Maine don't follow this rule. Under the current system, you can become President is you win the popular vote in these eleven states:
California
Texas
New York
Florida
Illinois
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Georgia
Michigan
North Carolina
New Jersey
...and not gain one vote in the remaining 39 states. Heck, 5 people could vote in California and you win 3 to 2, and you get all 55 electoral votes.
If you take recent elections as a guide, even though around 50-70 million people voted for each candidate, the winner only really needed around 20 million votes to win.
[Edited on 9/29/2016 by Bhawk]
I'm for Gary "____?_____ a foreign leader" Johnson . That guy is totally fried. He should run as a don't do cannabis advertisement
Bob, can he still count on your support?
Probably the most mis-leading headline of the day! Johnson was asked to name a "world leader whom he LIKED OR ADMIRED". Tougher question - especially to a candidate who is on record for questioning world leadership at large. Of course the mainstream press jumped all over this, as they did with the "Aleppo moment".
Keep an honest and on-going scorecard. If you're already doing so you'll notice that when it comes to hateful racist statements, out and out lies and fabrications and general "eff-ups" - Johnson ain't even in the same game as Hillary and Donald!
And yes! I am still behind Gary Johnson!
I'm for Gary "____?_____ a foreign leader" Johnson . That guy is totally fried. He should run as a don't do cannabis advertisement
Bob, can he still count on your support?
Probably the most mis-leading headline of the day! Johnson was asked to name a "world leader whom he LIKED OR ADMIRED". Tougher question - especially to a candidate who is on record for questioning world leadership at large. Of course the mainstream press jumped all over this, as they did with the "Aleppo moment".
Keep an honest and on-going scorecard. If you're already doing so you'll notice that when it comes to hateful racist statements, out and out lies and fabrications and general "eff-ups" - Johnson ain't even in the same game as Hillary and Donald!
And yes! I am still behind Gary Johnson!
Not really. If that was the case, he would have stated that immediately. No, he had a "hummina Himmina" moment where he could only come up with a former leader who had died that day. Then he tried to name the former president of Mexico but couldn't remember his name, the very difficult to pronounce and remember Fox. He was governor of a state that borders Mexico.
No, that, with the "what is Aleppo?" comment shows he is about as world savvy as Trump.
I'm for Gary "____?_____ a foreign leader" Johnson . That guy is totally fried. He should run as a don't do cannabis advertisement
Bob, can he still count on your support?
Probably the most mis-leading headline of the day! Johnson was asked to name a "world leader whom he LIKED OR ADMIRED". Tougher question - especially to a candidate who is on record for questioning world leadership at large. Of course the mainstream press jumped all over this, as they did with the "Aleppo moment".
Keep an honest and on-going scorecard. If you're already doing so you'll notice that when it comes to hateful racist statements, out and out lies and fabrications and general "eff-ups" - Johnson ain't even in the same game as Hillary and Donald!
And yes! I am still behind Gary Johnson!
Not really. If that was the case, he would have stated that immediately. No, he had a "hummina Himmina" moment where he could only come up with a former leader who had died that day. Then he tried to name the former president of Mexico but couldn't remember his name, the very difficult to pronounce and remember Fox. He was governor of a state that borders Mexico.
No, that, with the "what is Aleppo?" comment shows he is about as world savvy as Trump.
Doesn't Johnson support TPP? That would be a concern as well as his seemingly lack of knowledege on foreign affairs. From the few times I've heard him talk, he doesn't seem to have a good grasp on foreign affairs, which is critical for the office...not that Trump does either.
I'm not all that familiar with the Liberterian Party, and maybe someone can help explain the party position and emphasis upon international relations & world affairs. Whatever it is, in this day & age I believe it should be a critically emphasized area and all candidates should be well versed.
With that said - I wish Johnson & Weld all the luck, but the reality is that they will not win, and it appears they are taking millennial votes from HC, who as bad as she may be in some areas is a much better choice than Trump. I'd hate to see another Ralph Nader effect repeated. The stakes are much more now than Bush vs. Gore.
I'm for Gary "____?_____ a foreign leader" Johnson . That guy is totally fried. He should run as a don't do cannabis advertisement
Bob, can he still count on your support?
If you're talking to me he's never had my support. But what fascinates me is that you can see his inadequacies so clearly but can't seem to see Trump's, which are even more obvious. Not to mention the fact that Johnson's gaffs don't matter because he is not a viable candidate. Trump's matter a great deal.
[Edited on 9/29/2016 by bob1954]
I'm for Gary "____?_____ a foreign leader" Johnson . That guy is totally fried. He should run as a don't do cannabis advertisement
Bob, can he still count on your support?
If you're talking to me he's never had my support. But what fascinates me is that you can see his inadequacies so clearly but can't seem to see Trump's, which are even more obvious. Not to mention the fact that Johnson's gaffs don't matter because he is not a viable candidate. Trump's matter a great deal.
[Edited on 9/29/2016 by bob1954]
Hmmm, didnt you declare you voted in every Presidental election and never voted repub or democrat? What does that leave, the Liberaterian Party, right? In any event, its safe to conclude Garys presidential aspirations have gone up on smoke, literally.
I'm for Gary "____?_____ a foreign leader" Johnson . That guy is totally fried. He should run as a don't do cannabis advertisement
Bob, can he still count on your support?
If you're talking to me he's never had my support. But what fascinates me is that you can see his inadequacies so clearly but can't seem to see Trump's, which are even more obvious. Not to mention the fact that Johnson's gaffs don't matter because he is not a viable candidate. Trump's matter a great deal.
Hmmm, didnt you declare you voted in every Presidental election and never voted repub or democrat? What does that leave, the Liberaterian Party, right? In any event, its safe to conclude Garys presidential aspirations have gone up on smoke, literally.
You're recollection is wrong. I have voted in every Presidential election since 1972. That's 11 elections. Of those I've voted Republican 7 times, 3rd Party twice, and write-in twice (my wife both times). This year will be the first time I'll vote for a Democrat for President. I think what confused you is that I said I have never been a member of the Republican or Democrat party, but was once a member of the Libertarian party for one year before switching back to Interdependent. Capisce?
Looking back it's interesting to note that in those 11 elections my guy won only 4 times and 7 times my guy lost. Yet somehow my life continued to go on essentially unaffected. Of those 11 elections there is only one vote that I regret and that is when I voted for Bush in 2000. The reason for that regret is the Iraq war and all of the subsequent fallout which we are still dealing with today. Other than that I feel pretty good about my voting history.