Headlines
Is The Trump Train For Real? Polls Show Depth And Strength While HottyToddy.com Readers Are Mixed In Their Opinions
EDITOR’S NOTE: We want to hear from you. Send your thoughts to hottytoddynews@gmail.com
As polls across the board show Donald Trump leading the pack among Republican candidates and within six point of Hillary Clinton, the current Democrat front-runner, HottyToddy.com is asking readers “What’s the deal with Trump?”
“Donald Trump does not have correct answers, but he is very popular because he is candid and he is able to persuade that he can get something done,” said Will Norton, Dean of the Meek School of Journalism and New Media at Ole Miss. “He has identified the frustrations Americans feel – whether those frustrations are legitimate or not – and he speaks to those frustrations,” Norton added.
In an article published Saturday entitled “Why Donald Trump Won’t Fold: Polls and People Speak,” the New York Times reported Trump has built a “broad, demographically and ideologically diverse coalition, constructed around personality, not substances, that bridges demographic and political divides.”
“Trumpism . . . is an attitude, not an ideology”, the Times suggests.
“Unfortunately, much of what he is saying does not explain the situation or explain it in depth. So, if he becomes president, he will have to communicate with more precision and less with a blunt instrument”, Dean Norton said.
Clarksdale Mayor Bill Luckett, once a Democrat candidate for Governor of Mississippi, references an old saying “even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while. And Trumpt’s apparent positions on a couple of issues are solid – I agree with him that many politicians are deeply beholden (to the point of being puppets) to big donors. I agree with him that we need universal health care. But I do not want him having his finger on a nuclear device button.”
Referencing another thought from American political culture, “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people”, Mayor Luckett said. “This explains his current popularity.”
Carol Williams of Little Rock said, “although they are different personalities and ideologies, the Donald Trump candidacy is remarkably similar to that of Ross Perot. The rhetoric consists of pointing out what is wrong with the government, Congress and society, without providing any concrete solutions. (One does not include the building of a 1900-mile wall on our southern border.) Their monumental egos aside, the similarity does not end there. Will Trump be a spoiler for the GOP?”
Williams went on to add the following statement: “At the beginning of his crusade, it was felt that Trump would be so extreme that he would make the more moderate Republican candidates seem reasonable and more electable…then he would fade back into his glamorous Manhattan life, TV reality show and golf on weekends. Neither has he helped the party’s electability, nor is he addressing the issues which can slow the momentum of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy on the Democratic side of the ticket. Not having the financial support of the major GOP funders is no deterrent to billionaire Trump’s persistent campaigning, nor to a possible decision to run as an independent. GOP watchers cannot forget the 19 percent polled by Perot, throwing the 1992 election into the Clinton column. Those of us who consider ourselves liberal to moderate Republicans can but watch and wait.”
Barry Cannada, prominent Jackson attorney with Butler-Snow, said he cannot discern a motivating focus that supersedes his (Trump’s) apparent goal of celebrity.
“My hope is to have a president that is driven by a philosophical and moral direction that is clearly discernible . . . that he or she is accountable to a higher calling than even the office of the presidency regardless of whether I voted for them,” Cannada added.
Frances Permeter Smith, Jackson alumna of Ole Miss, said Trump concerns her while Minneapolis alum Ray Meifert says Trump is forcing politicians to address issues.
“He is capitalizing on the frustrations of Americans right now, but being ‘in your face’ on issues doesn’t usually work for true leaders, Smith said. I don’t see him as being able to compromise on issues and that is needed to get anything done in Washington. He’s a distraction from those I consider to be viable candidates.”
Meifert, however, says Trump is forcing politicians to address issues that they have avoided for years like immigration, taxes, China and even their own performance.
“Whether they like it or not he is driving the issues that candidates are discussing. Both parties, and the news media may not like how he says things but his positions are in areas that need to be addressed if our country is to remain strong,” Meifert said.
Story by Jim Roberts for HottyToddy.com. Email hottytoddynews@gmail.com with comments.
Brent
August 24, 2015 at 2:14 pm
It’s Democratic Party. Not Democrat Party. Please at least be mature enough to allow the political parties to choose their own names.
Jan
August 24, 2015 at 4:47 pm
Like the substance of “Hope and Change” was a strategy? Why don’t you ask someone besides Democrats their opinion next time. This is a stupid article.
Judy Daniel
August 24, 2015 at 5:19 pm
He is capitalizing on the frustrations of people who want to believe that there are simple answers to complex problems. They are frustrated because the world is changing fast and the problems we face require intelligence and diplomacy, not simplistic and unrealistic quick fixes. The last thing we need in a shaky global economy full of ideological insanity is a fast talking, mean-spirited billionaire bully.
Bill Jacobs
August 24, 2015 at 7:56 pm
Your survey of Democrats only and their responses demonstrate the problem with Progressive Democrats and their take on our problems. In comparison to Trump what have any of the Democratic candidates done other than be in government or academia which qualifies them to do what? Scared to have Trump with his finger on the trigger, but willing to let Hillary who has already shown her corrupt character and ineptness at managing. Trump may have flaws, but if I have to be in a foxhole With someone let it be Trump.
John Michaels
August 24, 2015 at 9:58 pm
Perot did not “elect Clinton.” Perot merely helped Bush save face and present a false case of Bush electability. The empirical data suggests Perot saved Bush I from a landslide loss.
Bush Sr.’s approvals in election season 1992 were where Jimmy Carter’s (JIMMY CARTER!!!) were in 1980 (and much lower than W in 2004): http://www.gallup.com/poll/116677/presidential-approval-ratings-gallup-historical-statistics-trends.aspx
Clinton was beating Bush much worse, and Bush was polling 37-40% when Perot was gone: http://www.gallup.com/poll/110548/gallup-presidential-election-trialheat-trends-19362004.aspx
Exit polls showed Perot didn’t affect the popular outcome: http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/05/us/1992-elections-disappointment-analysis-eccentric-but-no-joke-perot-s-strong.html
“If Mr. Perot had not been on the ballot, 38 percent of his voters said, they would have voted for Gov. Bill Clinton, and 38 percent said they would have voted for President Bush.”
Perot was not a conservative but center-left: http://www.ontheissues.org/Ross_Perot.htm Perot was almost as liberal as Clinton on abortion, guns, and more liberal on trade.
For Bush to have won 270 EVs, he’d have needed to win almost every state he lost by less than 5, which doesn’t happen when a president has Carteresque election year approvals (https://farm1.staticflickr.com/276/19359602563_149a87ebde_o.png) Also note that he’d have needed WI, but Dukakis won that when Bush was popular, so Bush wasn’t going to win when he was very unpopular.
Clinton was no fluke but rather a massive electoral college sea change. From 1968-1988, IL, NM, CA, NJ, VT, and NH went Republican 6 out of 6 times, MI, DE, ME 5 out of 6 times, PA, CT, ME, MD 4 out of 6 times. Those states alone add up to 161 EVs. These states (except NH in 2000 and NM in 2004) have all gone Democrat 6 for 6 (in races with and without Perot) since Bill and Hillary Clinton came along, in races with and without Perot.
Trump would be Nader; who exit polls showed actually did take more from Gore than Bush, in a MUCH closer election http://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/2000/11/13/what-happened-in-florida/f6a090e5-5418-4d03-ac26-0f06989556ff/
In today’s age of big data, you cannot keep thinking you’re gonna get away with this. Even a conservative has recently given up on this lie. http://spectator.org/articles/63682/bushioisie-wrong-ross-perot-didn%E2%80%99t-%E2%80%98cost%E2%80%99-ghw-bush-white-house-1992 No Jeb, no way, no more Bushes.