Trump voters are ready to risk everything. Why?

[ieatbacon]

Good read on the psychology of Trump voters:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... &tid=ss_tw

tl;dr - People are more willing to accept risk when they perceive a potential for loss, even if that risk acceptance isn't purely rational. In this sense, Trump's uncertainty works to his advantage - his voters see a lot of negative choices, thus support the candidate with the most risk (they choose to play the lottery over choosing someone that represents a smaller, but definite lose).

Maybe I'm more risk adverse than the average voter, but I'll support someone that definitely won't order a war crime over someone who might: Kasich, Rubio, Cruz, random UVA grad, person that is only being investigated for misdemeanors, Clinton, Trump

[awesome guy]

Good read on the psychology of Trump voters:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... &tid=ss_tw

tl;dr - People are more willing to accept risk when they perceive a potential for loss, even if that risk acceptance isn't purely rational. In this sense, Trump's uncertainty works to his advantage - his voters see a lot of negative choices, thus support the candidate with the most risk (they choose to play the lottery over choosing someone that represents a smaller, but definite lose).

Maybe I'm more risk adverse than the average voter, but I'll support someone that definitely won't order a war crime over someone who might: Kasich, Rubio, Cruz, random UVA grad, person that is only being investigated for misdemeanors, Clinton, Trump

What are we risking exactly? Or better yet, what are we risking the establishment drones like Rubio have already given away?

Trump hasn't ordered a war crime or said he won't, but assuming your canard is true, you're on record for voting for someone that setup an illegal war in Libya that toppled a stable and cooperative government in favor of another safe harbor for ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood. I'm not sure how that could possibly square with someone concerned over what Trump may do to foreign policy. Are you for illegal wars?

[Bay_area_Hokie]

The Washington Post has numerous anti Trump articles a day. I have written them off as another MSNBC.

I assume nothing pisses off the media more than something transcending the media.

[awesome guy]

The Washington Post has numerous anti Trump articles a day. I have written them off as another MSNBC.

I assume nothing pisses off the media more than something transcending the media.

Partially agree. But I think they're blind to Trump because he is the opposite of the appropriately educated, socialized, career oriented, elitists know-nothings that have wrecked this nation and driven us into a 20 trillion dollar deficit, eroded the middle class, and surrendered our culture and jobs to illegal immigrants and hostile muslims. They can't see Trump support because they can't see the error in their own ways, they're blinded by hubris. So they'll never understand Trump till they understand how they've screwed things up. They refuse to see that Trump is a rebuke of them and their policies.

[Major Kong]

Trump voters are ready to risk everything. Why?

Why not

Obama promised to close Gitmo, be the most transparent President ever, make the seas recede, align the cosmos, pay other peoples mortgages and bring peace and harmony to the universe.

Folks are used to politicians being all hat and no cattle.

[ieatbacon]

Trump voters are ready to risk everything. Why?

Why not

Obama promised to close Gitmo, be the most transparent President ever, make the seas recede, align the cosmos, pay other peoples mortgages and bring peace and harmony to the universe.

Folks are used to politicians being all hat and no cattle.

You could make the risk argument about Obama too. He made a lot of empty promises, and had no record to show what he would/could do. Trump is making more. Instead of doubling down on someone that promises you what you want to hear (whether the promise happens to be closing Gitmo, free college, or a better wall than China has), maybe we should pick someone that has a successful record of Governing (Kasich)? Or at least someone less over the top and risky as Trump (Cruz, Rubio)?

[awesome guy]

Trump voters are ready to risk everything. Why?

Why not

Obama promised to close Gitmo, be the most transparent President ever, make the seas recede, align the cosmos, pay other peoples mortgages and bring peace and harmony to the universe.

Folks are used to politicians being all hat and no cattle.

You could make the risk argument about Obama too. He made a lot of empty promises, and had no record to show what he would/could do. Trump is making more. Instead of doubling down on someone that promises you what you want to hear (whether the promise happens to be closing Gitmo, free college, or a better wall than China has), maybe we should pick someone that has a successful record of Governing (Kasich)? Or at least someone less over the top and risky as Trump (Cruz, Rubio)?

Your premise has been that Hillary is better than Trump.

[Major Kong]

You could make the risk argument about Obama too. He made a lot of empty promises, and had no record to show what he would/could do. Trump is making more. Instead of doubling down on someone that promises you what you want to hear (whether the promise happens to be closing Gitmo, free college, or a better wall than China has), maybe we should pick someone that has a successful record of Governing (Kasich)? Or at least someone less over the top and risky as Trump (Cruz, Rubio)?

I'm all for Kasich and as I've posted a few times I'd be AOK with Mark Warner on the Democrat side (if the Dems got their collective heads out of the Clinton asses)...but it doesn't seem that's going to happen.

Let's face it in this years election we're faced with Yuk...so I'm just going to go with the candidate with a paler shade of Yuk.

[ieatbacon]

Trump voters are ready to risk everything. Why?

Why not

Obama promised to close Gitmo, be the most transparent President ever, make the seas recede, align the cosmos, pay other peoples mortgages and bring peace and harmony to the universe.

Folks are used to politicians being all hat and no cattle.

You could make the risk argument about Obama too. He made a lot of empty promises, and had no record to show what he would/could do. Trump is making more. Instead of doubling down on someone that promises you what you want to hear (whether the promise happens to be closing Gitmo, free college, or a better wall than China has), maybe we should pick someone that has a successful record of Governing (Kasich)? Or at least someone less over the top and risky as Trump (Cruz, Rubio)?

Your premise has been that Hillary is better than Trump.

The posted article was about Trump vs. the R field and why so many people were voting for Trump over less risky and known R choices. It's not about Hillary vs. Trump. I can appreciate a vote for Trump over Hillary, if that's the choice we're left with. I can't appreciate during the primary process people that are far to the right of me that, even if they didn't vote for Trump, seem to be ok with him being the R nominee. He supports planned parenthood, individual mandate, maintaining entitlement programs, etc. Any of those positions individually would normally doom a Republican candidate, but Trump has found a way to tap into conservatives' anger in a way that what he says and what he does has no impact into how supporters view him.

In some ways, it's fascinating. In other ways, it's a little scary what he could end up doing if there's almost nothing he's held accountable for on the campaign trail.

[awesome guy]

Trump voters are ready to risk everything. Why?

Why not

Obama promised to close Gitmo, be the most transparent President ever, make the seas recede, align the cosmos, pay other peoples mortgages and bring peace and harmony to the universe.

Folks are used to politicians being all hat and no cattle.

You could make the risk argument about Obama too. He made a lot of empty promises, and had no record to show what he would/could do. Trump is making more. Instead of doubling down on someone that promises you what you want to hear (whether the promise happens to be closing Gitmo, free college, or a better wall than China has), maybe we should pick someone that has a successful record of Governing (Kasich)? Or at least someone less over the top and risky as Trump (Cruz, Rubio)?

Your premise has been that Hillary is better than Trump.

The posted article was about Trump vs. the R field and why so many people were voting for Trump over less risky and known R choices. It's not about Hillary vs. Trump. I can appreciate a vote for Trump over Hillary, if that's the choice we're left with. I can't appreciate during the primary process people that are far to the right of me that, even if they didn't vote for Trump, seem to be ok with him being the R nominee. He supports planned parenthood, individual mandate, maintaining entitlement programs, etc. Any of those positions individually would normally doom a Republican candidate, but Trump has found a way to tap into conservatives' anger in a way that what he says and what he does has no impact into how supporters view him.

In some ways, it's fascinating. In other ways, it's a little scary what he could end up doing if there's almost nothing he's held accountable for on the campaign trail.

Kasich is the only one that is really a known. The other two are 1-term senators so whatever record they have is marginal over Trump. And with Kasich, he's shown that he's moved to the left on many issues, like he came out for full amnesty today. That disqualifies him, same as it did Rubio. That leaves Cruz and Trump as supporters of the most important issues facing America. From there, it boils down to credibility. Trump has shouted the loudest about immigration, business environment, and national security so he has the most credibility in those issues to many people. He even resurrected the immigration issue into the top issue it is today. There's nothing scary about people supporting the person most aligned with their beliefs. In fact, you're describing someone that is very moderate and not part of the left or right of the republican party. They have their key issues they care about and are focused on them. Trump is drawing support from across the aisle as he's benefiting from something like a 32% increase in democrats voting for him. He has the broad support that the GOP has claimed it's craved for decades. There's nothing at all scary about Trump. His nomination really shows how pissed off the voters are at the do-nothing know-it-alls we've had in political leadership, he has an aura of success and getting things down. It's also an indictment against the weenie "moderates" that are really just liteweight liberals. The people are responding to his projection of strength after 8 years of a weenie as president and moderates that sold them out. All that said, I voted for Cruz and will vote for Trump, assuming he's the nominee.

[ieatbacon]

Trump has shouted the loudest about immigration, business environment, and national security so he has the most credibility in those issues to many people.

I guess we have very different opinions on what builds credibility. Shouting vs. demonstrating depth and ability.

[awesome guy]

Trump has shouted the loudest about immigration, business environment, and national security so he has the most credibility in those issues to many people.

I guess we have very different opinions on what builds credibility. Shouting vs. demonstrating depth and ability.

He's demonstrated leadership in the real world. So yeah, we have different opinions of credibility and really needs. Trump is an executive, not a policy wonk. He'll hire and manage them to get the job done.

[burgrugby]

The posted article was about Trump vs. the R field and why so many people were voting for Trump over less risky and known R choices. It's not about Hillary vs. Trump. I can appreciate a vote for Trump over Hillary, if that's the choice we're left with. I can't appreciate during the primary process people that are far to the right of me that, even if they didn't vote for Trump, seem to be ok with him being the R nominee. He supports planned parenthood, individual mandate, maintaining entitlement programs, etc. Any of those positions individually would normally doom a Republican candidate, but Trump has found a way to tap into conservatives' anger in a way that what he says and what he does has no impact into how supporters view him.

In some ways, it's fascinating. In other ways, it's a little scary what he could end up doing if there's almost nothing he's held accountable for on the campaign trail.

I voted for Trump in the VA primary and posted a few weeks back why I was going to do so. I'm pissed at the establishment, so I won't support one of their candidates (Rubio or Kasich). Cruz is a very close second to Trump in my opinion. What puts Trump over the top is that I'm sick of career politicians so that is the slight negative that puts Cruz behind. The other issue is that I see folks coming out to support Trump that normally wouldn't support a R. Trump is building a wave of support.

I don't believe Trump is what he appears to be on TV either. He's smart. I think he's playing with the media. He's purposefully saying outrageous things because he can and it pisses the media off. The fact that both Dems hate him and the establishment hates him, tells me he is doing something right. The campaigns by both the left and the right to derail him make me think those in power are overly afraid of what he'll change. I think he will blow up the whole system and I think it's about time.

[nolanvt]

The posted article was about Trump vs. the R field and why so many people were voting for Trump over less risky and known R choices. It's not about Hillary vs. Trump. I can appreciate a vote for Trump over Hillary, if that's the choice we're left with. I can't appreciate during the primary process people that are far to the right of me that, even if they didn't vote for Trump, seem to be ok with him being the R nominee. He supports planned parenthood, individual mandate, maintaining entitlement programs, etc. Any of those positions individually would normally doom a Republican candidate, but Trump has found a way to tap into conservatives' anger in a way that what he says and what he does has no impact into how supporters view him.

In some ways, it's fascinating. In other ways, it's a little scary what he could end up doing if there's almost nothing he's held accountable for on the campaign trail.

I voted for Trump in the VA primary and posted a few weeks back why I was going to do so. I'm pissed at the establishment, so I won't support one of their candidates (Rubio or Kasich). Cruz is a very close second to Trump in my opinion. What puts Trump over the top is that I'm sick of career politicians so that is the slight negative that puts Cruz behind. The other issue is that I see folks coming out to support Trump that normally wouldn't support a R. Trump is building a wave of support.

I don't believe Trump is what he appears to be on TV either. He's smart. I think he's playing with the media. He's purposefully saying outrageous things because he can and it pisses the media off. The fact that both Dems hate him and the establishment hates him, tells me he is doing something right. The campaigns by both the left and the right to derail him make me think those in power are overly afraid of what he'll change. I think he will blow up the whole system and I think it's about time.

Would it be unfair to say that your criteria was based on emotion?

[HokieFanDC]

The posted article was about Trump vs. the R field and why so many people were voting for Trump over less risky and known R choices. It's not about Hillary vs. Trump. I can appreciate a vote for Trump over Hillary, if that's the choice we're left with. I can't appreciate during the primary process people that are far to the right of me that, even if they didn't vote for Trump, seem to be ok with him being the R nominee. He supports planned parenthood, individual mandate, maintaining entitlement programs, etc. Any of those positions individually would normally doom a Republican candidate, but Trump has found a way to tap into conservatives' anger in a way that what he says and what he does has no impact into how supporters view him.

In some ways, it's fascinating. In other ways, it's a little scary what he could end up doing if there's almost nothing he's held accountable for on the campaign trail.

I voted for Trump in the VA primary and posted a few weeks back why I was going to do so. I'm pissed at the establishment, so I won't support one of their candidates (Rubio or Kasich). Cruz is a very close second to Trump in my opinion. What puts Trump over the top is that I'm sick of career politicians so that is the slight negative that puts Cruz behind. The other issue is that I see folks coming out to support Trump that normally wouldn't support a R. Trump is building a wave of support.

I don't believe Trump is what he appears to be on TV either. He's smart. I think he's playing with the media. He's purposefully saying outrageous things because he can and it pisses the media off. The fact that both Dems hate him and the establishment hates him, tells me he is doing something right. The campaigns by both the left and the right to derail him make me think those in power are overly afraid of what he'll change. I think he will blow up the whole system and I think it's about time.

I think it's almost certain he isn't what he appears to be on TV. But, if he's playing with the media, he's also playing with the voters. They are voting for the TV Trump, not a guy who is going to scale back on everything he says he'll do, or completely change his position. Which is what I think you'll get.

[RiverguyVT]

Good read on the psychology of Trump voters:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... &tid=ss_tw

tl;dr - People are more willing to accept risk when they perceive a potential for loss, even if that risk acceptance isn't purely rational. In this sense, Trump's uncertainty works to his advantage - his voters see a lot of negative choices, thus support the candidate with the most risk (they choose to play the lottery over choosing someone that represents a smaller, but definite lose).

Maybe I'm more risk adverse than the average voter, but I'll support someone that definitely won't order a war crime over someone who might: Kasich, Rubio, Cruz, random UVA grad, person that is only being investigated for misdemeanors, Clinton, Trump

The devil is in the details of the pre-supposed (guessed) downside.
I'm no Trump guy, but his downside isn't even close (in my mind) to being as devastating as Hillary!->'s or Bernies's. Not even in the same ballpark.

[USN_Hokie]

Good read on the psychology of Trump voters:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... &tid=ss_tw

tl;dr - People are more willing to accept risk when they perceive a potential for loss, even if that risk acceptance isn't purely rational. In this sense, Trump's uncertainty works to his advantage - his voters see a lot of negative choices, thus support the candidate with the most risk (they choose to play the lottery over choosing someone that represents a smaller, but definite lose).

Maybe I'm more risk adverse than the average voter, but I'll support someone that definitely won't order a war crime over someone who might: Kasich, Rubio, Cruz, random UVA grad, person that is only being investigated for misdemeanors, Clinton, Trump

If you support Kasich or Rubio at this point, you defacto support either Trump or Clinton for President. Anyone should know this.

[USN_Hokie]

The devil is in the details of the pre-supposed (guessed) downside.
I'm no Trump guy, but his downside isn't even close (in my mind) to being as devastating as Hillary!->'s or Bernies's. Not even in the same ballpark.

Yep. 12 years of Democrat control of the executive branch is far more dangerous than Trump. Even if Trump turned out to be a disaster, that might not be a bad thing for the two-party system in this country.

[USN_Hokie]

I think it's almost certain he isn't what he appears to be on TV. But, if he's playing with the media, he's also playing with the voters. They are voting for the TV Trump, not a guy who is going to scale back on everything he says he'll do, or completely change his position. Which is what I think you'll get.

He's a businessman. The Primary is a boardroom of investors he's trying to convince to do business to him. When (if) he campaigns before the general election boardroom, he'll present a different portfolio to those investors. You watch - IF he wins the primary, he will tack left hard enough to make John McCain blush. I'm calling it again - he'll pick a democrat (Webb) for his running mate.

[HokieFanDC]

I think it's almost certain he isn't what he appears to be on TV. But, if he's playing with the media, he's also playing with the voters. They are voting for the TV Trump, not a guy who is going to scale back on everything he says he'll do, or completely change his position. Which is what I think you'll get.

He's a businessman. The Primary is a boardroom of investors he's trying to convince to do business to him. When (if) he campaigns before the general election boardroom, he'll present a different portfolio to those investors. You watch - IF he wins the primary, he will tack left hard enough to make John McCain blush. I'm calling it again - he'll pick a democrat (Webb) for his running mate.

Not sure how that is any different than what I said, ie completely change his position.
This isn't a boardroom or investor pitch. If he presented his product to group A, and said it was one thing, and then presented his product to group B, and said it was something different, group A and group B would call him a fraud.

[USN_Hokie]

I think it's almost certain he isn't what he appears to be on TV. But, if he's playing with the media, he's also playing with the voters. They are voting for the TV Trump, not a guy who is going to scale back on everything he says he'll do, or completely change his position. Which is what I think you'll get.

He's a businessman. The Primary is a boardroom of investors he's trying to convince to do business to him. When (if) he campaigns before the general election boardroom, he'll present a different portfolio to those investors. You watch - IF he wins the primary, he will tack left hard enough to make John McCain blush. I'm calling it again - he'll pick a democrat (Webb) for his running mate.

Not sure how that is any different than what I said, ie completely change his position.
This isn't a boardroom or investor pitch. If he presented his product to group A, and said it was one thing, and then presented his product to group B, and said it was something different, group A and group B would call him a fraud.

1. I was agreeing with you, dufus - and providing an anecdote.
2. The deal changes. Group A is now left to choose between the liar who said things they liked 4 months ago (and is maybe just lying to Group B?), and Hillary. Group B (the general electorate) are generally just imbeciles who weren't paying attention to the negotiations with Group A (and are maybe thinking he lied to Group A). All voters are stupid, but "moderates/undecideds" are the dumbest of the dumb.

[HokieFanDC]

I think it's almost certain he isn't what he appears to be on TV. But, if he's playing with the media, he's also playing with the voters. They are voting for the TV Trump, not a guy who is going to scale back on everything he says he'll do, or completely change his position. Which is what I think you'll get.

He's a businessman. The Primary is a boardroom of investors he's trying to convince to do business to him. When (if) he campaigns before the general election boardroom, he'll present a different portfolio to those investors. You watch - IF he wins the primary, he will tack left hard enough to make John McCain blush. I'm calling it again - he'll pick a democrat (Webb) for his running mate.

Not sure how that is any different than what I said, ie completely change his position.
This isn't a boardroom or investor pitch. If he presented his product to group A, and said it was one thing, and then presented his product to group B, and said it was something different, group A and group B would call him a fraud.

1. I was agreeing with you, dufus - and providing an anecdote.
2. The deal changes. Group A is now left to choose between the liar who said things they liked 4 months ago (and is maybe just lying to Group B?), and Hillary. Group B (the general electorate) are generally just imbeciles who weren't paying attention to the negotiations with Group A (and are maybe thinking he lied to Group A). All voters are stupid, but "moderates/undecideds" are the dumbest of the dumb.

1. Does not compute!
2. I'm pretty sure it's not moderates/undecideds who are supporting Trump...and it's the Trump supporters who are the dumbest of the dumb.

[UpstateSCHokie]

Here's a couple of things that should make people feel better about Trump:

#1 Take a listen to his sons speak. Both of them are very articulate and impressive young men. In fact, when I listen to Donald Jr. I think he would make a better candidate than his dad. Now I don't know much about their personal lives, so maybe they're both creeps. All I can go on is what I hear from them, and based on that I'd say their dad has done a fine job raising them.

#2 If Trump wins the Presidency, he will likely run into opposition from both parties. If Hillary wins, you can be sure that the democrats and her will be on the same page and will pull every trick in the book to ram through their far left agendas. The establishment GOP already hate Trump so they are not going to work hand in hand with him the way the democrats will do with granny.

And finally, like USN said, at this point in the race if you don't want Trump to win the nomination and you have yet to vote, your only real alternative is to vote for Cruz. Honestly, if Rubio and Kasich really wanted to stop Trump they both would have dropped out about a week ago so that tomorrow could truly be a 2 man show down. But as it is, they anti-Trump vote will continue to split the vote which only helps the The Donald. So if you want Trump to win, vote for either Trump, Rubio, or Kasich.

[USN_Hokie]

I think it's almost certain he isn't what he appears to be on TV. But, if he's playing with the media, he's also playing with the voters. They are voting for the TV Trump, not a guy who is going to scale back on everything he says he'll do, or completely change his position. Which is what I think you'll get.

He's a businessman. The Primary is a boardroom of investors he's trying to convince to do business to him. When (if) he campaigns before the general election boardroom, he'll present a different portfolio to those investors. You watch - IF he wins the primary, he will tack left hard enough to make John McCain blush. I'm calling it again - he'll pick a democrat (Webb) for his running mate.

Not sure how that is any different than what I said, ie completely change his position.
This isn't a boardroom or investor pitch. If he presented his product to group A, and said it was one thing, and then presented his product to group B, and said it was something different, group A and group B would call him a fraud.

1. I was agreeing with you, dufus - and providing an anecdote.
2. The deal changes. Group A is now left to choose between the liar who said things they liked 4 months ago (and is maybe just lying to Group B?), and Hillary. Group B (the general electorate) are generally just imbeciles who weren't paying attention to the negotiations with Group A (and are maybe thinking he lied to Group A). All voters are stupid, but "moderates/undecideds" are the dumbest of the dumb.

1. Does not compute!
2. I'm pretty sure it's not moderates/undecideds who are supporting Trump...and it's the Trump supporters who are the dumbest of the dumb.

2a. Right, because they're not in Group A.
2b. IMO, the people watching Dancing with the Stars/Owe my balls instead of participating in the primary process are the dumbest.

[awesome guy]

I think it's almost certain he isn't what he appears to be on TV. But, if he's playing with the media, he's also playing with the voters. They are voting for the TV Trump, not a guy who is going to scale back on everything he says he'll do, or completely change his position. Which is what I think you'll get.

He's a businessman. The Primary is a boardroom of investors he's trying to convince to do business to him. When (if) he campaigns before the general election boardroom, he'll present a different portfolio to those investors. You watch - IF he wins the primary, he will tack left hard enough to make John McCain blush. I'm calling it again - he'll pick a democrat (Webb) for his running mate.

Not sure how that is any different than what I said, ie completely change his position.
This isn't a boardroom or investor pitch. If he presented his product to group A, and said it was one thing, and then presented his product to group B, and said it was something different, group A and group B would call him a fraud.

1. I was agreeing with you, dufus - and providing an anecdote.
2. The deal changes. Group A is now left to choose between the liar who said things they liked 4 months ago (and is maybe just lying to Group B?), and Hillary. Group B (the general electorate) are generally just imbeciles who weren't paying attention to the negotiations with Group A (and are maybe thinking he lied to Group A). All voters are stupid, but "moderates/undecideds" are the dumbest of the dumb.

1. Does not compute!
2. I'm pretty sure it's not moderates/undecideds who are supporting Trump...and it's the Trump supporters who are the dumbest of the dumb.

2a. Right, because they're not in Group A.
2b. IMO, the people watching Dancing with the Stars/Owe my balls instead of participating in the primary process are the dumbest.

2c. The people watching Jon Oliver are misinformed boobs