So first off I'm not american, I have no skin in the game so to speak. Every 4 or so years the US elections are always interesting given the high stakes and the passion most Americans appear to feel for their chosen candidates.
When George Bush was elected I think the reaction from Europeans was surprise, but that was just because he leaned far more to the right than most of our politicians at home. It was surprise that someone could win with those ideologies but of course America isn't Europe and I'm sure lots that happens here seems weird to other nations.
What is really hard to understand is why anyone paying attention would vote for Trump. He seems to be unclear on most of his plans, and those that he is clear on appear to be really hard on lower income families while benefiting the already wealthy. When you throw in all of the legal threats, treatment of those in the media, incitement of groups to violence etc on top of what should be unpopular policies then its pretty surprising that he has any support at all.
Now I get that, on some level, voters can rationalize away minor issues and get behind a strong leader with a big following but how does anyone justify voting for someone that can do this:
Here is the most important thing to understand about everything you have seen/heard so far: nobody has EVER voted for Trump. EVER. Every single thing you have heard for the last year about delegates, superdelegates, who "won" which state, etc, is total horseshit. What has happened, is that a bunch of people who are seriously invested in the political process - but only account for about 0.02% of the US population - have stood up and said, "When it comes time to vote, I am going to vote for X person." Now, there are two interesting votes: At each party's convention, where the people who show up get to decide which name they are going to put up for their candidate for President. And then the real vote, on November 8th, when ALL Americans can go to their polling station and vote... but only about 22-27% of them actually do. So all the "news" about "Sanders won X state" or "Trump won Y state" means that a tiny number of people - less than 100, in most cases - said that, at the Democratic Convention or the Republican Convention, when they get called on, they will vote for Sanders, or Trump, or whoever. But they did not sign anything. They did not commit to that position. They can change their minds right up until the moment they raise their hand and have their vote counted at the Convention. Which, again, only decides who is going to get the R next to their name, and who is going to get the D next to their name. Then, when I walk into my polling place on November 8th, I will put a check mark next to one of those names. (Or I may choose any one of the other 6 or 8 people who may be listed there who the media have NEVER talked to, and are running for the Communist Party, or the Green Party, or the Truth and Liberty Party, or whoever. Or I can write in "Gary Busey", if I want to.) So remember... NOBODY has EVER voted for Trump. EVER. He has never held political office. He has never been on a ballot. The first time he ever would be, is on November 8th, 2016. If he makes it that far. The media wants to create a dramatic story. In the past, they never even mentioned either party until the Conventions, because there isn't any actual news until then. Nowadays, they have found a way to drum up vitriol and fantasy out of, quite literally, nothing. Don't be sucked in.
This isn't entirely accurate. The stark majority of RNC delegates are bound- that is, they are required to vote at convention how their state voted in the primary. So they actually did commit to that decision. So while it's vaguely accurate to say that nobody's really voted yet... kind of... very loosely... it's equally accurate to say that in some ways a lot of people have already voted without yet having even put pen to paper. I don't think it helps anybody at this point to just say "don't believe the hype" and sweep the issue under the rug. I do think it's abundantly clear by now that plenty of people that "haven't ever voted for Trump" (nod wink) will have no problem voting for Trump should he make it to the generals. And given that he has a good number of bound delegates at this point, we all ignore that possibility at our peril... as the Republican party has already demonstrated. Beyond that. The fact that somebody who has voiced the opinions Trump has voiced (whether he believes them or not) and accepted the support he has (explicitly or implicitly) can win such vocal support by any more than a piddling minority should be of great concern to all of us, whether or not he makes it past convention. Think it's okay to get a little sucked in.
This misconception is exactly why I bring up my point so emphatically. There is nothing that binds either a Republican or Democrat delegate to voting for the same candidate at the Convention, that they voted for in their state. This is clearer to see in this example: Rubio won 169 delegates, and then dropped out of the race. So are those delegates forced to vote for him at the Republican Convention? Of course not. They are free to change their mind and vote for any other candidate. Same with every other Delegate. Even so-called "bound" delegates are not actually "bound" to their previous vote. It's rare for them to change their vote, but it does happen. (They call them Faithless Electors, and usually this is tantamount to losing your party support... but with the R's running scared from Trump, I expect we will see a LOT of Faithless Electors in this RNC.) A very good friend of mine is a Superdelegate here in WA state, so I've been geeking out on this quite a bit with him. The stark majority of RNC delegates are bound- that is, they are required to vote at convention how their state voted in the primary.
The points you just raised are dependent on a contested convention. Not on a clear majority outcome. The whole point of gaining a majority of delegates in the primary is that the delegates who pledged themselves to the also-ran don't matter jack doodly squat at an uncontested convention. They can stand up and pledge their support to Marco Rubio or Marco Polo- the majority rules. Now, within that majority may exist a group of bound delegates and a group of unbound delegates- the latter far outweighed by the former. And sure, there's presumably some wiggle room in that group of unbounds if you're looking for it. But my point still stands: bound delegates are bound delegates, and they're bound by state rules rather than party rules. Hell, they're currently bound by party rules as well (more on that in a second). Nothing in the wikipedia article you linked to disproves that. Here, I'll quote where the misunderstanding might have come about: That's per DNC custom. Per RNC custom: A majority of the unpledged delegates are elected much like the pledged delegates, and are likely to be committed to a specific candidate. Many of the other unpledged delegates automatically claim the delegate status either by virtue of their position as a party chair or national party committee person. This group is known as unpledged RNC member delegates. The process by which delegates are awarded to a candidate will vary from state to state. Many states use a winner-take-all system, where popular vote determines the winning candidate for that state. However, beginning in 2012 many states now use proportional representation. While the Republican National Committee does not require a 15% minimum threshold, individual state parties may impart such a threshold. The unpledged RNC member delegates are free to vote for any candidate and are not bound by the electoral votes of their state. Unpledged RNC delegates are free to vote for any candidates. Pledged delegates? Not so much. Now, this goes out the window in a contested convention. And there's one guy- one guy! Arguing currently that pledged delegates aren't actually pledged: http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/13/rnc-rules-comm-member-every-delegate-at-gop-convention-not-bound-on-first-ballot/ Side-note: I can't find reports of this from any reputable news source, so I have to take this whole memo with a grain of salt. Most reports, however, state pretty unambiguously that bound delegates are just that. Here's a horribly-designed website that lays it out in pretty granular detail: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/R-Alloc.phtml Ctrl+f "bound" to navigate that trainwreck. Note that the rules state not only that delegates who ignore their pledge shall be penalized, but that their decision change won't even be recognized. Note that those rules are the 2016 rules. Applicable as of April the first of this year. That's uncontested. It's not a misconception, it's actually pretty clear as per current rules. Contested? Whole different ball game. Here's a helpful guide that isn't wikipedia: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/10/a_contested_republican_convention_explained.htmlThis is clearer to see in this example: Rubio won 169 delegates, and then dropped out of the race. So are those delegates forced to vote for him at the Republican Convention? Of course not. They are free to change their mind and vote for any other candidate.
Pledged delegates are elected or chosen at the state or local level, with the understanding that they will support a particular candidate at the convention. Pledged delegates are, however, not actually bound to vote for that candidate, thus the candidates are allowed to periodically review the list of delegates and eliminate any of those they feel would not be supportive. Currently there are 4,050 pledged delegates.
The Republican Party utilizes a similar system with slightly different terminology, employing pledged and unpledged delegates. Of the total 2,472 Republican delegates, 1,719 are pledged delegates, who as with the Democratic Party, are elected at the state or local level. To become the Republican Party nominee, the candidate must win a simple majority of 1,237 of the 2,472 total delegates at the Republican National Convention.
This is a good section from the Slate article you quoted: Exactly which ones will be freed and when depends on a rather complicated set of state party rules—which, like the national ones, are not written in stone—but by the New York Times’ count, the number of unbound delegates would grow from 5 percent during the first round of voting to 57 percent in the second, and then to 81 percent in the third. Even those are rough numbers, though, since states can unbind their delegates if the candidate they were assigned to vote for withdraws from the race or fails to meet certain vote thresholds on the convention floor. Wait, but why would a Trump delegate defect to another camp? Trump fans don’t seem like the type of people who change their minds about Trump. True. But while the bulk of delegates arrive in Cleveland bound to a particular candidate, that doesn’t mean they necessarily personally favor that candidate. A Trump delegate could very well loathe Trump; a Ted Cruz delegate might prefer John Kasich. And so on. Some states allow candidates to select the delegates that will represent them—making them more likely to remain loyal even once unbound—but those delegates only account for about 14 percent of the total. The vast majority of the rest are selected during state or district conventions that are held well after the actual state primaries or caucuses. Those slots tend to be filled with rank-and-file Republicans who are involved with the state and local party, making them theoretically more open to the GOP establishment’s anybody-but-Trump entreaties than primary voters have been. So once a delegate becomes unbound, who can he or she vote for? Anyone else whose name has been formally placed into nomination—be it someone who is already an official candidate this year, like Cruz, Rubio, or Kasich, or someone who isn’t, be it Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, or whoever else the GOP poobahs try to cast as a white knight. Now, tell me more about how bound delegates become free agents.
I have no qualms with anything you posted, and generally agree. Up until April 1 of this year, thre has been a historical pattern, but there was no requirement for a bound delegate to vote for the same person at the Convention. The new rules seem to state something like that in the link you provided, but I can't find that wording anywhere else. And it isn't reflected in other R writings or sources. In the past, a delegate who chose to change their vote would be effectively ostracized from the RNC. They'd lose party funding, party support, etc. It would effectively end their career as a Republican, in most cases. But that was pressure being applied through financial means. Not a rule that they cannot break. One of the two factors that play into how Republicans choose delegates, is "Party Loyalty." With the entire GOP machine slowly turning against Trump, that might mean that at the RNC a "loyal" vote might be a vote against Trump. No matter how this plays out, the tiger is eating its tail. And the GOP will not survive this. What will fill that vacuum?
Dude. That site I provided links directly to the source. There need not be wording anywhere else, and it doesn't have to be reflected in other R writings or sources, because the link is quoting the official rules of the RNC, supplied at the very top of the link. Here. Note the title of that document. The Rules of the Republican Party. Not The Historical Patterns of the Republican Party, not Pressures to be Applied Through Financial Means of the Republican Party. Rules! And yes, most rules generally must be backed up by coercive measures, such as pressure applied through financial means. But the rule- as laid out by the RNC and currently still in place- is that bound delegates are bound delegates. And should they unbind, there are not only huge penalties, but explicit directions in the rule-book to ignore that inconsistency! And remember, that quote you just posted from Slate is what happens in the case of a CONTESTED convention. Not uncontested. Contested: bound delegates vote with their bound choice first round, and then in the likely event of a second round, they may unbind. Contested. Look man, I hope to God this is a contested convention for so many reasons. I think it'd be politics porn for everybody who's into that sort of thing (me, you, NPR, etc), it'd bloody the candidate who made it through, it'd open the window for a third-party Trump situation which would further divide the Republican vote, it'd maybe- maybe lead to some heartfelt soul-searching on the Republican side of the spectrum (just kidding). But don't let's go around telling people that even if it's uncontested, there's nothing to worry about and voting doesn't exist until the generals. It's just not true.
Not so. Each state part gets to draft their own rules; that is why it's so difficult to know how many delegates each candidate is or will be awarded so far. Some states' delegates would be released after round one, some after round two and so on. However, the candidates themselves have some say in who the delegates are, so many will be voting their conscience (or lack thereof) anyway, so being released might not mean too much. It gets very complicated very fast. It's almost as if they didn't really plan for this to actually ever happen :).... and then, when the first round of voting finishes, everything we have talked about gets thrown out, and an entire new set of rules comes in. Nobody is bound to anything they did previously.
If you're a member of a formerly majority group who is disenfranchised by a crappy economy and shrinking middle class.... (in other words - you're white person who's parents may have had it better than you do) and you're mad as hell about it... and you want to blame people with skin that is shades of brown darker than yours... and you want to be able to "speak your mind" without repercussions (in other words say racists and misogynist things without being called out for it)... and you want to blame politicians who seem to have buggered everything up... and you're not educated enough to know any better... and you don't understand what the office of the presidency is REALLY about... . . . and there's a dude yelling: IT'S OKAY TO BE MAD! I'M MAD TOO! IT'S OKAY TO DEMEAN WOMEN! I'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR YEARS! IT'S OKAY TO HATE ALL "MEXICANS" (even though he means all people of latin decent, and likely all people of skin browner than his) I'VE GOT A GREAT PLAN I'VE GOT YOOGE PLANS. I'm not saying I like it... but there's a YOOGE population of people who are just. that. dumb.
In other words, wishful thinking. People in Russia like Vladimir Zhirinovsky for the same reason, even though most of the population (that I've spoken to about it) pegs him a clown. Just listen to this (not his most passionate speech, but oh dear, is it biased; LDPR is the Liberal-Democratic Party of Russia) - or read this from BrainyQuotes. People seem to think that Zhirik is only on the political stage to create an illusion of democracy, of that change is possible; personally, I don't see how he'd be running the country: he seems to have no idea how to do so!
As fun as it is to call the other side dumb, I don't think that's it. He appeals to angry working class white people. The Republicans have been misdirecting their anger at minorities for a long time to get their support, but they're more sophisticated now. They're not going to go to the left, they'll be expected to do too much self-flagellating, and they're not secure enough to shrug that off. Trump takes some traditional left-populist positions, opposition to trade deals being the big one, and he's not going to make them feel bad for America's history of racism and misogyny because he's still racist and misogynist. He's manipulating people just as transparently, he just has a more modern strategy for doing it.
Perhaps uneducated? Or willingly ignorant, take your pick.
Angry, frustrated, afraid, those work better. People voting for Trump are not dumb; I'm surrounded by them and don't fucking dare put up a Sanders decal unless I want rocks thrown through my windows. People outside of the big tech cities are watching amazing things happen somewhere else as their way of life is slipping away... and nobody seems to care or even give a shit as long as the Internet is working and the pizza is being delivered for the sports stuff this weekend. Trump himself will be a joke and I am not afraid of him. I'm scared and concerned about what friends of his will be running the FCC, SEC, DEA, FDA, EPA etc. That is where the real fear should be. Of all the candidates, the only one that I think gives a damn about anyone who really needs to be told "hey, it sucks now but I'm working on it, I got your back" is Sanders. And the neat thing to watch is that the more some of these diehards are hearing about him because they hate the Clintons, the more they are telling me that he makes sense and seems genuine.
Trevor Noah has made the point that Donald Trump is an African despot running for president. If you think of him as an Oompa Loompa version of Robert Mugabe or Goodluck Jonathan you can see a few facets. The Washington Post (and others) have argued that Donald Trump is an American Silvio Berlusconi. That gets to the heart of it somewhat as well. But I think you can't really grasp Trump until you understand the disenfranchisement of the electorate he represents. I don't know if this happens in Europe, but I once wandered down to the American Legion to vote and a guy literally asked me who to vote for. Apparently I looked like a trustworthy source of information, so he went down the ballot with me and asked me what it all meant and who deserved his vote. The American political process emphasizes disenfranchisement. The way our ballot measures are written, the way the political process is gerrymandered across appointed committees, elected officials, special districts, one-time ballot measures, recurring ballot measures, partisan judges running for bipartisan positions where their political affiliation is specifically banned from the ballot... and then the press boils things down to "corporations are citizens" and "Justice Souter can take your house." Propaganda need not be true, it need only be resonant. "Throw the bums out" is a common sentiment in the United States, and has been lo these many decades. Yet no matter how strongly we all feel it, we're effectively powerless against it. Effectively true: You also have to understand that the Republicans have been swerving ever deeper into demagoguery. Sarah Palin railed against our meek, milquetoast form of national health by invoking "death panels." Obama is a secret muslim according to most Republican pundits. Even 20 years ago Rush Limbaugh told a breathless audience that Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster murdered to keep Bill's secret cocaine airstrips a secret. In my life we've elected an actor president (to two terms!), a variety show host to the Senate and a pro wrestler as governor. Name recognition counts far more than experience and Trump has been up in our collective grille since the mid '80s. I mean, Marine LePen. Golden Dawn. The economy is going great for certain select members of the aristocracy and for everyone else, it just gets worse. Donald Trump taps into that the same way George Wallace did, the same way Huey Long did. That's because you misjudge what they're paying attention to. If the political process is a mystery, if the political class is the enemy and if the political system has abandoned you, a loud, outspoken demagogue that promises solutions regardless of the cost becomes attractive... and it's far easier to stay convinced than put forth the effort you never have before in order to educate yourself. Particularly if you're attempting to educate yourself into supporting Hillary Clinton, a woman that has been shrillified by every media outlet you've ever watched since 1991. The National Review ran an entire issue on why Trump must be stopped. Unfortunately, the Republican base hasn't read the National Review for a couple generations now. You're lucky if they can make it through USA Weekend cover-to-cover. When you're working two shifts at the chicken processor just to pay for your dentures you aren't gonna spend a lot of time at the top of Maszlow's pyramid.
What is really hard to understand is why anyone paying attention would vote for Trump.
It's funny I should read this where I was, I was in a public restaurant on wifi and all of the sudden the couple next to me started discussing Trump, and why the guy was going to vote for him! I took notes, not to be a dirty little spy but he was in a public place saying stupid things that were relevant to this discussion. She was against Trump, so it was an interesting discussion. She also said that he wasn't doing anything "wrong", though. Anyway, the arguments he made, mixed with some of her comments and my own in italics (less of those since they are slightly off-topic): - Trump does not tiptoe around any issue and just says what's on his mind, and what's on everyone else's mind. Her rebuttal was that it's a form of inducement, that he doesn't in fact say what's on everyone's mind but tells you what should be on your mind so you think it's what is on your mind. - Trump doesn't talk like a politician, and for people who are sick of politicians, this is appealing. My rebuttal to this is that he's the most snakey politician that's using the most manipulative politician tactics around, just bringing it into the modern age. He's brought IT usability principles into politics, and lowers the barrier for entering the political debate by talking at a 5th grade level. - Trump doesn't use talking points, he doesn't use a teleprompter, etc, and the other politicians don't know how to handle this in debates, so it makes politicians look bad. He's making politician's look like assholes, which they are, so he must be doing something right and he'll likely bring that power to the executive branch by cutting through the political bullshit. - Trump isn't racist, he just says things that are edgy and it plays into people's racist fears. Which she shot back with was essentially the same thing as racism. - Trump's main points of growing the economy and military are the two things that will make America great again since we are in an economic and military crisis. There is a perceived fear and a perceived threat felt by some Americans even today from ISIS, as if they are in direct danger from ISIS or that an increased military could even impact this. Unfortunately, everyone thinks that Obama is pro-terrorism for some reason since he hasn't taken out ISIS, but the point of ISIS' terrorism is that it is an idea now instead of a real network like Al Qaeda was. They have their self-proclaimed caliphate, but the only threat we have locally is crazy people agreeing with them and acting on their own accord with no direct ties to the caliphate itself. This can happen for the extreme views of any political, religious, or opinionated topic. - People don't know what fascism means, fascism is a system of government and not an individual. Mostly true, but it's also a word to describe a person who subscribes to fascist ideals. Kind of like communists vs. communism. I'd also point out that saying "my choice of a candidate isn't a fascist!" isn't really a good campaign slogan. - People keep comparing Trump to 1940s Hitler, he's more like 1920s Hitler. He is addressing and embodying the desires of the people much like Hitler started out, but he will go a different path. He's just using the same tactics to gain power that Hitler did. I really don't know what to say to this one.... - If he decides to do something fascist, the system will prevent him anyway so it's okay if he wants to be like that. Time and time again this has been proven to be a stupid assumption. The government always has gained more and more power, and the executive branch is already exceedingly powerful. There is plenty he can do as president without passing laws.... - Cruz and Rubio are for loyal republicans sticking to their same ideas and are the status quo for politicians, therefore Trump is a good candidate. Lack of sound conclusion jumping there, just because all the other candidates suck, doesn't mean that the last one is good. - The Tea Party endorses him, and the Tea Party is trying to properly fix this country. Every ideal that the Tea Party started out with has been completely squashed and has nothing to do with what they actually care about now. Most of their small government rhetoric is immediately followed by a policy involving the increasing of the government. -- Another point is that most people in the US nowadays get their news and the articles they read almost exclusively from Facebook suggestions. After you click one link on one topic, you end up getting marked as someone that would click that type of topic, and the learning algorithms adjust and conform your Facebook feeds to fit you. Since everyone is talking about Trump, the media keeps publishing and covering his candidacy pretty much 24x7 at this point, even if they say he is a "bad" candidate people start to click more and more links about him and get drowned in Trump stories in their Facebook feed. Remember the saying "there's no such thing as bad publicity"? Well, in this case it's true. If there's really that many stories about him, that much information about him, and that much coverage, people start to take him more seriously as a candidate without even needing to research their policies. I remember myself when I was in junior high school, way before I was really politically aware of a lot of things, I supported a candidate exclusively based on groupthink. You see two polarized sides form and you pick a side. It's one of the biggest issues in this country and if you aren't aware of the effects of the extreme polarization of every issue in our country at the moment (just think of the media, you are either "for" or "against" an issue, never "it's more complicated than that" else you get kicked off the show forever). Everything is about debate for debate sake, without actually logically analyzing the situation and taking it as seriously. People jump to conclusions very rapidly since attention spans are short and peer pressure to be a part of a group is high. This is why I do not really talk to anyone anymore if I can't help it. I feel that being my own person is something that requires me to isolate myself, and I watch as people form illogical groups and stop attempting to learn new things. I watch coworkers and friends fail to even gain any ground in their level of knowledge or skills in the workplace or life because they are focused more on their social status and their Facebook feeds than attempting anything of any challenge. Some of this is due to the human desire to be recognized or be a part of something that matters or is just historic, regardless of what it is, and their feeling that they cannot do this alone. This is much much harder to do nowadays since the population is simply so vast.
White supremacists and people who don't want to admit to themselves that they are white supremacists.
There's a difference between target audience and every single person that's voting for him. But I wouldn't be too surprised if a large amount of the women voting for him have internalized misogyny and a large amount of the non white people voting for him have internalized racism.
What I find most troubling is how adults see him as someone they can relate too. He acts like an immature child incapable of carrying on adult conversations and this is what a large group of adults can relate too. I find this most troubling because it will hang around even after this election is over and everything blows over. I didn't want to know just how many of these people existed. Having said that, I've heard some people want to vote for him because they want people to realize how little power the president actually has. The thing is though even if he doesn't have that much power in government he would still be in a position were he can be influential.
He isn't a politician running in a party that doesn't like politicians.