Why there are likely less than a million actual Trump supporters in the US.

[Stacyhs]

I have been involved in politics for almost 50 years and have heard this refrain in every election. My Dad use to make this one joke about Presidential elections. "It's like the choice between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum and he didn't have a favorite Tweedle."

I have always found this sad. Do people actually expect a perfect candidate? Don't they understand that compromise is inevitable?

There are lots of things I don't like about Biden. But I do think he's a good man trying to do his best for all of us.

That's pretty much how I feel about it. Biden is far from perfect, but Trump is so far past disgusting, crazy, and dangerous that being only 'far from perfect' makes the choice easy.

 

[marting]

I think that's more a question for Trump voters as he's the one with multiple indictments for several different crimes and found liable for sexual assault. There's nothing Biden could do that would ever make me vote for Trump. Frankly, the fact that the GOP has tried their damnedest to find something ...anything...to charge Biden with and failed tells me they have nothing.

I just ran across a piece in WaPo that goes directly to the question. It discusses "Never Trump" and "Never Biden" polls which have changed and not in Biden's favor. What's interesting is that the "never" appears to not actually mean never.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/never-trump-never-biden-voters-might-loom-larger/ar-BB1mCqnx

While much has been made of “Never Trump” Republicans, “Never Biden” voters appear to loom even larger — at least for now.
Back in 2020, it was the opposite. Whenever the question was asked, the percentage saying they’d never vote for Trump outpaced the “Never Biden” contingent by double digits.

Often, at least 50 percent of voters said not only that they weren’t voting for Trump, but that there was no chance they would. At most, just 4 in 10 said the same of Biden.
...
That’s now flipped.

The most recent poll to show this is Monday’s New York Times-Siena College poll of six key swing states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Across those states, 46 percent of registered voters said there was no chance they’d vote for Trump, while 52 percent said the same of Biden.

One possibility is that Biden is President. He has to actually govern and make decisions. Some will not be popular. Trump can just complain about the "Witch Hunt" and say he'd make everything great again without being specific. Empty, feel good, sales pitches are Trump's specialty. He's practiced for decades.

 

[Orphia Nay]

I have been involved in politics for almost 50 years and have heard this refrain in every election. My Dad use to make this one joke about Presidential elections. "It's like the choice between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum and he didn't have a favorite Tweedle."

I have always found this sad. Do people actually expect a perfect candidate? Don't they understand that compromise is inevitable?

There are lots of things I don't like about Biden. But I do think he's a good man trying to do his best for all of us.

A lot of people are too young to understand that some presidential decisions are between a rock and a hard place, and they blame that on the president, not life.

A lot of people on this forum are as old or older than the president/candidates, and know a lot or know more about life and politics than the politicians.

Biden is old enough to know about life, and also has more experience with politics and more intelligence and compassion than Trump.

 

[acbytesla]

A lot of people are too young to understand that some presidential decisions are between a rock and a hard place, and they blame that on the president, not life.

A lot of people on this forum are as old or older than the president/candidates, and know a lot or know more about life and politics than the politicians.
Biden is old enough to know about life, and also has more experience with politics and more intelligence and compassion than Trump.

Exactly.

I'm disappointed that Biden hasn't done more about the cost of living for ordinary Americans. But I also know the GOP has done everything in their power to prevent him from accomplishing anything just so they can blame him for everything. No Congress has accomplished less than this Congress. And the right wing courts have also prevented half the initiatives he has attempted to implement.

Now I could blame him for everything and turn it over to the party that only cares about the rich, the powerful and themselves. But that doesn't seem like a wise course.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Exactly.

I'm disappointed that Biden hasn't done more about the cost of living for ordinary Americans. But I also know the GOP has done everything in their power to prevent him from accomplishing anything just so they can blame him for everything. No Congress has accomplished less than this Congress. And the right wing courts have also prevented half the initiatives he has attempted to implement.

Now I could blame him for everything and turn it over to the party that only cares about the rich, the powerful and themselves. But that doesn't seem like a wise course.

The cost of living is bad all round the world. Climate change, causing drought, floods, and war are all bound to disrupt the means of production, making goods dearer.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

is someone a Trump supporter if he/she might usually vote for Democrats but doesn't vote for either Biden or Trump ?

What's the general opinion?

 

[acbytesla]

The cost of living is bad all round the world. Climate change, causing drought, floods, and war are all bound to disrupt the means of production, making goods dearer.

There really is no excuse to the rising cost of living. The world has the resources and ability to address the challenges. The problem is leadership and governance. But it's not just about who the American President is. It's about other world leaders as well as legislators and courts.

The war in Ukraine was caused by a megalomaniac dictator. And that caused a major issue in the supply of many many things. Most importantly the supply of energy. And this presents a major profit opportunity for the multinational oil companies.

I lived through this before, From 1975 to about 1982 energy prices soared. Middle East war. OPEC. Inflation soared. The Fed jacked up interest rates. And the voters blamed Jimmy Carter. Never mind that he never caused either.

In response the public radically changed their habits. They dumped the gas guzzling huge American sedans and bought high mpg economy cars instead. They reduced speed limits and that resulted in the leveling off of energy demand. And that resulted in the leveling off of inflation.

This is deja vu all over again. And instead of Ronald Reagan taking over, we're looking at potentially Orange Hitler resuming power.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Cost of living shouldn't rise if profits for providing living necessities are high - at this point, inflation is just another word for corporate grift.

 

[Stacyhs]

is someone a Trump supporter if he/she might usually vote for Democrats but doesn't vote for either Biden or Trump ?

What's the general opinion?

I don't think so, although not voting for Biden does help Trump. But that's not the same thing as supporting Trump by voting for him.

IMO, if you recognize the danger Trump poses to our democracy but don't vote for Biden because you're unhappy with the economy, then you're just cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I don't think so, although not voting for Biden does help Trump. But that's not the same thing as supporting Trump by voting for him.

IMO, if you recognize the danger Trump poses to our democracy but don't vote for Biden because you're unhappy with the economy, then you're just cutting off your nose to spite your face.

that's one way to look at it.

Or you could say that it is not rewarding the Dems' strategy to elevate the worst Republicans as their opponents to run against, so they don't have to stand for anything but "not that".

 

[Stacyhs]

that's one way to look at it.

Or you could say that it is not rewarding the Dems' strategy to elevate the worst Republicans as their opponents to run against, so they don't have to stand for anything but "not that".

You could say that if criticizing the Dems' strategy is more important than preventing Trump from getting back in the White House. But that's still cutting of your nose to spite your face.

 

[Trausti]

Cost of living shouldn't rise if profits for providing living necessities are high - at this point, inflation is just another word for corporate grift.

So true. Corporate greed pushed inflation high in the 1980s. Damn you, Gordon Gekko.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

You could say that if criticizing the Dems' strategy is more important than preventing Trump from getting back in the White House. But that's still cutting of your nose to spite your face.

as Citizens, it is my Right, nay DUTY to criticize those in power ALL THE TIME. And it is their job to listen to it.

 

[Venom]

BS

 

[acbytesla]

that's one way to look at it.

Or you could say that it is not rewarding the Dems' strategy to elevate the worst Republicans as their opponents to run against, so they don't have to stand for anything but "not that".

Except the problem with what you're alternatively saying is that it isn't true. Seems to me, the Democrats were advancing policy when they had a friendly congress. They have even demonstrated a willingness to work with Republicans when they don't. For example, the Chips bill and immigration.

Sadly, governing requires politics, and politics requires money. And few things drive donations better than "not that."

 

[Venom]

In other words, if I don't think your guy is great, and the other guy is evil incarnate, I'm a horrible person who is irredeemably stupid? Nah, nothing at all hyperpartisan about that.

When we get to a point as a society where we're not even allowed to think that both of the options we're being force-fed suck without being attacked and insulted, we've got problems.

Hello I see you're stuck in the 1990s.

 

[Stacyhs]

as Citizens, it is my Right, nay DUTY to criticize those in power ALL THE TIME. And it is their job to listen to it.

And that has nothing whatsoever to do with what we are actually discussing.

 

[Emily's Cat]

A lot of people are too young to understand that some presidential decisions are between a rock and a hard place, and they blame that on the president, not life.

I blame it on 1) first past the poll voting system and 2) parties

Right now, I'm blaming a whole lot of it on closed primaries in which the vast majority of potential candidates drop out after 3 primaries, so nobody actually gets to have a say in who the parties platform in the first place. The parties themselves are forcing us to choose between a rock and a hard place, even though the entire area is surrounded by rolling hills covered in nice soft clover.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Except the problem with what you're alternatively saying is that it isn't true. Seems to me, the Democrats were advancing policy when they had a friendly congress. They have even demonstrated a willingness to work with Republicans when they don't. For example, the Chips bill and immigration.

Sadly, governing requires politics, and politics requires money. And few things drive donations better than "not that."

I consider this a complete non-sequitur.

The idea that it is money that gets you elected has been proven wrong again and again.
What matters is Ground Game, community outreach, lots of spokespersons to flood the media channels. And a candidate that comes across as "authentic".

But is IS true that Democrats and Republicans see it as their primary job to collect donations.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I consider this a complete non-sequitur.

The idea that it is money that gets you elected has been proven wrong again and again.
What matters is Ground Game, community outreach, lots of spokespersons to flood the media channels. And a candidate that comes across as "authentic".

But is IS true that Democrats and Republicans see it as their primary job to collect donations.

With how the US functions for elections, there's also a tactical element involved. Media coverage requires money, as does outreach and spokespersons. But where that money is spent geographically also matters a lot. For example, while it's technically possible for California to flip to a Republican vote, it's so extraordinarily unlikely as to be implausible. Realistically, if CA flips... it means that R wins in an incontrovertible landslide. As a result of that dynamic, it's not really worth either candidate spending a whole lot of time, money, or effort trying to convince Californians of what they're already going to do.

There's a marketing concept that comes into play here, where potential customers are split into four cohorts: The Sure Thing, The Lost Cause, The Sleeping Dogs (more recently rebranded to Do Not Disturb), and The Persuadables. Sure Things are just that - they're the people who are going to buy your product (or vote for your candidate) pretty much no matter what. There's no need to spend money advertising to them, or at least not anything more than the basic level of acknowledgement and appreciation. The Lost Causes are the flip-side to that - they're never going to buy your product regardless of how much you spend trying to win them over.

Sleeping Dogs have always been the cohort I find most fascinating. These are the people that have a reasonably high likelihood of buying your product as long as you leave them alone. If you reach out to them, you end up either annoying them or your end up prompting them to shop and it increases the chance that they'll choose your competitor instead. This one is really interesting to me, because Gen-X is absolutely bursting with Sleeping Dogs - we just want to be left alone in relative peace with minimal disruption... and by and large Gen-X really dislikes advertising. And since the demographics of the largest voting block is shifting as Baby Boomers decline, the effect of this cohort is likely to make for very interesting times.

At the end of the day, marketers (and smart politicians) focus on Persuadables - those who are most likely to be influenced by advertising, narrative, etc. In terms of politics, that ends up being Independents, as well as moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats. It also means that most of the efforts should end up being in states that are purple, or are light blue or light red. In those states, Dems and Reps tend to have smaller margins between them, and usually you see a higher proportion of Independents. It's common to see situations where the electorate ends up being like 45% D, 43% R, and 12% I - and that Independent block is entirely capable of turning the vote.