Trump Voters.... why?

[forummm]

Didn't read the whole thread, but wanted to weigh in as someone who knows some Trump supporters personally (I am not a fan myself).

I think to understand Trump's popularity, you need to understand certain poverty dynamics in areas of the US. Trump did great in Appalachia where there is serious white poverty and hardship. Many of the people there feel left behind for a million reasons, some very valid and some possibly not-so-much. Really, if you think you’ve seen poverty in the cities you have to go see the hills of Appalachia. I’ve worked with the urban poor, most of whom were racial/ethnic minorities, and while their lives were extremely difficult, they all benefited greatly from great programs like subsidized utilities, housing, medical care, etc. Being in an urban area, these safety nets (while far from perfect) were accessible and delivered immense relief to families in need. In rural areas however, these support networks break down and are few and far between. Many hollows in Appalachia still look like a scene from a developing nation – shacks, farm animals running everywhere, garbage burning, no running water, etc. White voters in these depressed areas get worked up over things like affirmative action, Black Lives Matter, Dreamers, and other “liberal” causes. To them it feels like others are constantly being handed things, or at the very least are given a voice on the national stage, while they are just thrown away and ignored completely. It isn’t necessarily a rational argument, but when you are down in the pits, it’s dog eat dog and the idea that immigrants might be given ANYTHING while you sit in your shack trying to make ends meet is very upsetting. It feels like the government cares more about non-citizens than you. It feels like they are more likely to listen to aggressive Black Lives Matter advocates and protesters than a family who is repeatedly asking for help. It feels like they just keep giving and giving to everyone but you and your family. And then the "liberals" start talking about taking away coal...the only source of income in your area...and you get even more afraid, and even more angry. It's like you are being attacked while being simultaneously humiliated and slapped in the face.

Once you see it like that, Trumpism becomes understandable. Clinton, and her colleagues are viewed not only as rich elitists, but rich elitists who don’t actually care about the American people EQUALLY. They are viewed as more enamored with specific racial and minority groups than the population at large. They are seen as hypocritical…saying they care about the poor while simultaneously earning millions. In this environment, nearly anyone who remotely appears to be the opposite can quickly become popular.

I personally would never support Trump. But I think alot of us liberals (yes, I am super liberal) are just completely off base when we castigate Trump supporters as just nasty, ignorant people. There is so, so much more at play here than just bigotry. At least, that is what I have seen from my own experience.

Given that over 80% of people in the country are in urban areas, and many people in rural areas are either not poor or not white, you are describing an incredibly small portion of the country. Maybe <5%? 10% at the very most. Clearly they aren't the ones propelling him to polling ahead of Clinton at one point last month. There are other forces at play.

[Metric Mouse]

If it's 10%, it would be close to the proportion of African Americans in this country - that demographic is considered quite important to Trump's opponents.

[oldtoyota]

I volunteered with the Red Cross on disasters. It's actually better for famous people with large security details to stay away from the scene and let the responders do their work.

George Bush took a lot of heat for flying over LA during a previous flood. It was probably better that he wasn't on the roads--what roads there were--tangling things up even worse just like it is better for Obama to stay away until the situation is stabilized.

So yeah. Trump wins on getting the photo opp, which is all it was.

And Hillary can't go if Obama doesn't go because it would make him look bad.

He did the worst photo op. of the year then. No motorcade, few local press, almost no national attention. Poor guy.

Yes. He did have a motorcade. Presidential candidates don't get to decide whether to have one or not due to security reasons.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-arrives-in-louisiana-to-tour-flood-areas/ar-BBvP0dn

[thd7t]

I volunteered with the Red Cross on disasters. It's actually better for famous people with large security details to stay away from the scene and let the responders do their work.

George Bush took a lot of heat for flying over LA during a previous flood. It was probably better that he wasn't on the roads--what roads there were--tangling things up even worse just like it is better for Obama to stay away until the situation is stabilized.

So yeah. Trump wins on getting the photo opp, which is all it was.

And Hillary can't go if Obama doesn't go because it would make him look bad.

He did the worst photo op. of the year then. No motorcade, few local press, almost no national attention. Poor guy.

Yes. He did have a motorcade. Presidential candidates don't get to decide whether to have one or not due to security reasons.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-arrives-in-louisiana-to-tour-flood-areas/ar-BBvP0dn

Also, the governor of LA asked him publicly not to do it, but Trump ignored him.

[forummm]

If it's 10%, it would be close to the proportion of African Americans in this country - that demographic is considered quite important to Trump's opponents.

"Important" sure. But important in the context of normal elections where a candidate wins by 2-6 percentage points, so winning 90% of the 13% black vote could be the margin of victory. Trump is somehow getting 40+% in polls. If 5% is in the poor rural white demo, that leaves 35+% supporting him for other reasons.

[mrpercentage]

If it's 10%, it would be close to the proportion of African Americans in this country - that demographic is considered quite important to Trump's opponents.

"Important" sure. But important in the context of normal elections where a candidate wins by 2-6 percentage points, so winning 90% of the 13% black vote could be the margin of victory. Trump is somehow getting 40+% in polls. If 5% is in the poor rural white demo, that leaves 35+% supporting him for other reasons.

fact: 1999 a place I worked at had 25,000 employees at one site alone. Today it had less than 1,000. Technically it has more employees today than it did in 1999 but they are all overseas. What does that tell you. Not to mention many industries today list their finances in places like the Bahamas so they can compete in that market by side stepping taxes... so we pay less in taxes to export jobs to be more competitive and sidestep taxes. You see the problem here. Do a 15% corporate tax and Apples money comes home. See how that works?

A 35% tax rate forces companies to cheat. If they cant cheat then they will go out of business and now you will have zero jobs and zero taxes and zero money from those consumers going into the economy and zero innovation from that company

[nobodyspecial]

An excellent analysis of Trump's marketing from one of the best in the ad business
http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/view-dave-trott-trumps-core-users/1405783

The linked article goes on to explain why exactly the same thinking led to the shock Brexit result.

It may be that Donald Trump understands marketing better than the entire Democratic Party.

In a speech, he said: "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose a single vote."

This is something the Democratic Party can’t understand.

They believe people are only voting for Trump because they don’t understand how stupid and evil he is.

They think, if they can make these people understand how stupid and evil Trump is, they won’t vote for him.

This shows that Donald Trump understands marketing better than the Democratic Party.

Because Trump understands the concept of Core Users.

These are the people that will always buy your product or brand, no matter what.

The opposite is the people who won’t buy your product or brand, no matter what.

These are the Core Non-Users.

The Clinton camp, of course, is full of Trump Core Non-Users.

But they don’t see it that way.

They think they are simply stating common sense.

If they could only make the Trump voters understand, they would change their vote.

Trump understands this isn’t true.

His Core Users will vote for him no matter what.

Meanwhile, the Clinton camp is doing what the Remain camp did during the Brexit vote.

They are ignoring the people that really matter.

The people who are neither Core Users nor Core Non-Users.

The people whose minds can be changed.

This is a major problem for anyone in marketing.

Separating our own subjectivity off from objectivity.

[little_brown_dog]

Didn't read the whole thread, but wanted to weigh in as someone who knows some Trump supporters personally (I am not a fan myself).

I think to understand Trump's popularity, you need to understand certain poverty dynamics in areas of the US. Trump did great in Appalachia where there is serious white poverty and hardship. Many of the people there feel left behind for a million reasons, some very valid and some possibly not-so-much. Really, if you think you’ve seen poverty in the cities you have to go see the hills of Appalachia. I’ve worked with the urban poor, most of whom were racial/ethnic minorities, and while their lives were extremely difficult, they all benefited greatly from great programs like subsidized utilities, housing, medical care, etc. Being in an urban area, these safety nets (while far from perfect) were accessible and delivered immense relief to families in need. In rural areas however, these support networks break down and are few and far between. Many hollows in Appalachia still look like a scene from a developing nation – shacks, farm animals running everywhere, garbage burning, no running water, etc. White voters in these depressed areas get worked up over things like affirmative action, Black Lives Matter, Dreamers, and other “liberal” causes. To them it feels like others are constantly being handed things, or at the very least are given a voice on the national stage, while they are just thrown away and ignored completely. It isn’t necessarily a rational argument, but when you are down in the pits, it’s dog eat dog and the idea that immigrants might be given ANYTHING while you sit in your shack trying to make ends meet is very upsetting. It feels like the government cares more about non-citizens than you. It feels like they are more likely to listen to aggressive Black Lives Matter advocates and protesters than a family who is repeatedly asking for help. It feels like they just keep giving and giving to everyone but you and your family. And then the "liberals" start talking about taking away coal...the only source of income in your area...and you get even more afraid, and even more angry. It's like you are being attacked while being simultaneously humiliated and slapped in the face.

Once you see it like that, Trumpism becomes understandable. Clinton, and her colleagues are viewed not only as rich elitists, but rich elitists who don’t actually care about the American people EQUALLY. They are viewed as more enamored with specific racial and minority groups than the population at large. They are seen as hypocritical…saying they care about the poor while simultaneously earning millions. In this environment, nearly anyone who remotely appears to be the opposite can quickly become popular.

I personally would never support Trump. But I think alot of us liberals (yes, I am super liberal) are just completely off base when we castigate Trump supporters as just nasty, ignorant people. There is so, so much more at play here than just bigotry. At least, that is what I have seen from my own experience.

Given that over 80% of people in the country are in urban areas, and many people in rural areas are either not poor or not white, you are describing an incredibly small portion of the country. Maybe <5%? 10% at the very most. Clearly they aren't the ones propelling him to polling ahead of Clinton at one point last month. There are other forces at play.

Yes, I don’t think that the situations I described are the sole reason for Trump's popularity. I guess I was trying to provide an example of how a decent person could respond positively to a candidate like Trump because OP seemed bewildered that anyone other than a raging, misogynistic white supremacist could ever support him. There are an awful lot of Trump supporters out there…they can’t all be just vicious bigots who hate brown skin and women. More likely, they are people who feel really let down and hurt in some way by the current political system and “liberal” policies in general, and therefore respond positively to Trump. I think the trouble is, too many people try to rationalize why people support this man. But really, if you listen to many Trump supporters, they aren't giving policy based reasons - they are giving emotional ones.

[cliffhanger]

I think the double standard that most media has when it comes to the treatment of democrats and republicans plays a huge roll in Trump's popularity. Conservatives feel pushed into a corner when supposedly unbiased new sources attack republicans while giving democrats a free pass on many issues/quotes/actions/etc. I'll give a quick example from PolitiFact:

Bernie Sanders says 'real unemployment' rate for African American youth is 51 percent. Rating: Mostly True
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/13/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-real-unemployment-rate-african/

Donald Trump says African-American youth unemployment is 59 percent. Rating: Mostly False
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/donald-trump/trump-misleadingly-puts-black-youth-unemployment-r/

I'd be happy to hear anyone's reasoning on why these statements are treated differently, but it seems to me to be extreme cherry picking of data on PolitiFact's part.

People are tired of these biases. A President Trump would not fix this, but many see him as the only one addressing the issue.

[ender]

But really, if you listen to many Trump supporters, they aren't giving policy based reasons - they are giving emotional ones.

You say this as if it's somehow unique to Trump in this election, as opposed to nearly ever election and candidate ever.

[MDM]

I think the double standard that most media has when it comes to the treatment of democrats and republicans plays a huge roll in Trump's popularity. Conservatives feel pushed into a corner when supposedly unbiased new sources attack republicans while giving democrats a free pass on many issues/quotes/actions/etc. I'll give a quick example from PolitiFact:

Bernie Sanders says 'real unemployment' rate for African American youth is 51 percent. Rating: Mostly True
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/13/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-real-unemployment-rate-african/

Donald Trump says African-American youth unemployment is 59 percent. Rating: Mostly False
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/donald-trump/trump-misleadingly-puts-black-youth-unemployment-r/

I'd be happy to hear anyone's reasoning on why these statements are treated differently, but it seems to me to be extreme cherry picking of data on PolitiFact's part.

People are tired of these biases. A President Trump would not fix this, but many see him as the only one addressing the issue.

Not sure about news organizations being "supposedly unbiased"  (although some do claim to be...), but that is a particularly cogent juxtaposition of articles.

[Northwestie]

I think the double standard that most media has when it comes to the treatment of democrats and republicans plays a huge roll in Trump's popularity. Conservatives feel pushed into a corner when supposedly unbiased new sources attack republicans while giving democrats a free pass on many issues/quotes/actions/etc. I'll give a quick example from PolitiFact:

Bernie Sanders says 'real unemployment' rate for African American youth is 51 percent. Rating: Mostly True
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/13/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-real-unemployment-rate-african/

Donald Trump says African-American youth unemployment is 59 percent. Rating: Mostly False
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/donald-trump/trump-misleadingly-puts-black-youth-unemployment-r/

I'd be happy to hear anyone's reasoning on why these statements are treated differently, but it seems to me to be extreme cherry picking of data on PolitiFact's part.

People are tired of these biases. A President Trump would not fix this, but many see him as the only one addressing the issue.

Jesus.  If you actually read the links you provided it's laid out there.

[GuitarStv]

I think the double standard that most media has when it comes to the treatment of democrats and republicans plays a huge roll in Trump's popularity. Conservatives feel pushed into a corner when supposedly unbiased new sources attack republicans while giving democrats a free pass on many issues/quotes/actions/etc. I'll give a quick example from PolitiFact:

Bernie Sanders says 'real unemployment' rate for African American youth is 51 percent. Rating: Mostly True
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/13/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-real-unemployment-rate-african/

Donald Trump says African-American youth unemployment is 59 percent. Rating: Mostly False
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/donald-trump/trump-misleadingly-puts-black-youth-unemployment-r/

I'd be happy to hear anyone's reasoning on why these statements are treated differently, but it seems to me to be extreme cherry picking of data on PolitiFact's part.

People are tired of these biases. A President Trump would not fix this, but many see him as the only one addressing the issue.

Jesus.  If you actually read the links you provided it's laid out there.

Those links are a good example of why context matters.

On the surface, that really seems like some biased bullshit.  When you actually read the context of the comments that is laid out by the articles though, it's clear why they were viewed differently.

[Jack]

I think the double standard that most media has when it comes to the treatment of democrats and republicans plays a huge roll in Trump's popularity. Conservatives feel pushed into a corner when supposedly unbiased new sources attack republicans while giving democrats a free pass on many issues/quotes/actions/etc. I'll give a quick example from PolitiFact:

Bernie Sanders says 'real unemployment' rate for African American youth is 51 percent. Rating: Mostly True
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/13/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-real-unemployment-rate-african/

Donald Trump says African-American youth unemployment is 59 percent. Rating: Mostly False
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/donald-trump/trump-misleadingly-puts-black-youth-unemployment-r/

I'd be happy to hear anyone's reasoning on why these statements are treated differently, but it seems to me to be extreme cherry picking of data on PolitiFact's part.

People are tired of these biases. A President Trump would not fix this, but many see him as the only one addressing the issue.

Jesus.  If you actually read the links you provided it's laid out there.

Those links are a good example of why context matters.

On the surface, that really seems like some biased bullshit.  When you actually read the context of the comments that is laid out by the articles though, it's clear why they were viewed differently.

Having read the explanations, I agree more with cliffhanger -- that is an example of Politifact bias against Trump (or at least, perhaps bias against a politician who declines to cite his sources).

Compare the conclusions to see the bias:

Sanders said that for African-Americans between the ages of 17 and 20, "the real unemployment rate … is 51 percent." His terminology was off, but the numbers he used check out, and his general point was correct

Trump says the unemployment rate for black youths is 59 percent.

The unemployment rate is a widely used term with a specific definition: It refers to the percentage of jobless people in the workforce who are actively seeking employment. In May, the unemployment rate for blacks ages 16 to 24 was 18.7 percent, or less than one-third of Trump’s claim.

Here are the parts that come closest to explaining why Politifact chose to [i.e., had an excuse to] rule differently:

Sanders’ camp pointed us to research by the Economic Policy Institute, a left-of-center think tank. This data is different from the more familiar measurements for a few reasons.

...

The statistic EPI used, known by the wonky shorthand U-6, is officially called a measure of "labor underutilization" rather than "unemployment." EPI itself used the term "underemployment" in its research.

It’s a real statistic, but Sanders didn’t really describe it the correct way.

So where did Trump come up with the eye-popping 59 percent? We can’t say with certainty, because Trump’s campaign, as usual, didn’t respond to our question. But Tara Sinclair, an economist at George Washington University, offered a clue.

Sinclair told us Trump’s percentage probably comes from a Bureau of Labor Statistics statistic called the "employment-population ratio." This is a figure that gauges employed people, age 16 and older, as a percentage of the entire population of adults.

n May, the bureau said the employment-population ratio for blacks ages 16 to 24 was 41.5 percent. Flipped over, that would mean that the unemployment ratio - although such a statistic is not published by the bureau - would be 58.5 percent. That’s pretty close to the 59 percent figure Trump cited, Sinclair noted.

Politifact essentially penalized Trump for not responding to their questions instead of ruling only on the accuracy of his statement.

Jack rates Politifact's analysis "Half Biased."

[TexasRunner]

...
Jack rates Politifact's analysis "Half Biased."

lol!  Thanks for digging in.

[iris lily]

I think the double standard that most media has when it comes to the treatment of democrats and republicans plays a huge roll in Trump's popularity. Conservatives feel pushed into a corner when supposedly unbiased new sources attack republicans while giving democrats a free pass on many issues/quotes/actions/etc. I'll give a quick example from PolitiFact:

Bernie Sanders says 'real unemployment' rate for African American youth is 51 percent. Rating: Mostly True
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/13/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-real-unemployment-rate-african/

Donald Trump says African-American youth unemployment is 59 percent. Rating: Mostly False
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/donald-trump/trump-misleadingly-puts-black-youth-unemployment-r/

I'd be happy to hear anyone's reasoning on why these statements are treated differently, but it seems to me to be extreme cherry picking of data on PolitiFact's part.

People are tired of these biases. A President Trump would not fix this, but many see him as the only one addressing the issue.

Jesus.  If you actually read the links you provided it's laid out there.

Those links are a good example of why context matters.

On the surface, that really seems like some biased bullshit.  When you actually read the context of the comments that is laid out by the articles though, it's clear why they were viewed differently.

Having read the explanations, I agree more with cliffhanger -- that is an example of Politifact bias against Trump (or at least, perhaps bias against a politician who declines to cite his sources).

Compare the conclusions to see the bias:

Sanders said that for African-Americans between the ages of 17 and 20, "the real unemployment rate … is 51 percent." His terminology was off, but the numbers he used check out, and his general point was correct

Trump says the unemployment rate for black youths is 59 percent.

The unemployment rate is a widely used term with a specific definition: It refers to the percentage of jobless people in the workforce who are actively seeking employment. In May, the unemployment rate for blacks ages 16 to 24 was 18.7 percent, or less than one-third of Trump’s claim.

Here are the parts that come closest to explaining why Politifact chose to [i.e., had an excuse to] rule differently:

Sanders’ camp pointed us to research by the Economic Policy Institute, a left-of-center think tank. This data is different from the more familiar measurements for a few reasons.

...

The statistic EPI used, known by the wonky shorthand U-6, is officially called a measure of "labor underutilization" rather than "unemployment." EPI itself used the term "underemployment" in its research.

It’s a real statistic, but Sanders didn’t really describe it the correct way.

So where did Trump come up with the eye-popping 59 percent? We can’t say with certainty, because Trump’s campaign, as usual, didn’t respond to our question. But Tara Sinclair, an economist at George Washington University, offered a clue.

Sinclair told us Trump’s percentage probably comes from a Bureau of Labor Statistics statistic called the "employment-population ratio." This is a figure that gauges employed people, age 16 and older, as a percentage of the entire population of adults.

n May, the bureau said the employment-population ratio for blacks ages 16 to 24 was 41.5 percent. Flipped over, that would mean that the unemployment ratio - although such a statistic is not published by the bureau - would be 58.5 percent. That’s pretty close to the 59 percent figure Trump cited, Sinclair noted.

Politifact essentially penalized Trump for not responding to their questions instead of ruling only on the accuracy of his statement.

Jack rates Politifact's analysis "Half Biased."

Jack earns a 100% rating from iris.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

Politifact essentially penalized Trump for not responding to their questions instead of ruling only on the accuracy of his statement.

I came away with two conclusions after reading both reports:

1) Those two articles were almost certainly written by two different authors.
2) Jack is probably right about Trump being 'penalized' by the author for not offering their source.

The respective campaigns' willingness to offer their sources could easily tip the balance in the authors' mind, given that both statements were pretty shaky. Ultimately it was a judgment call, and being cooperative helps to sway that judgment.

[ender]

The respective campaigns' willingness to offer their sources could easily tip the balance in the authors' mind, given that both statements were pretty shaky. Ultimately it was a judgment call, and being cooperative helps to sway that judgment.

A judgement call?

I'm not sure how long it took Jack to do his research, but if the point of that site is to respond to candidate claims with a "truth-o-meter" it sure looks bad for them to do such a poor job of it.

[Jack]

The respective campaigns' willingness to offer their sources could easily tip the balance in the authors' mind, given that both statements were pretty shaky. Ultimately it was a judgment call, and being cooperative helps to sway that judgment.

A judgement call?

I'm not sure how long it took Jack to do his research, but if the point of that site is to respond to candidate claims with a "truth-o-meter" it sure looks bad for them to do such a poor job of it.

I didn't do any research; I just read the two articles. I certainly agree that they need to do a better job keeping their "truth-o-meter" internally consistent!

[cliffhanger]

Politifact essentially penalized Trump for not responding to their questions instead of ruling only on the accuracy of his statement.

Jack rates Politifact's analysis "Half Biased."

Thanks Jack, your analysis seems pretty reasonable to me. While I would rather PolitiFact take a completely objective position when analyzing these type of statements, I can certainly understand how complex of a job it is for different authors write about different speeches a year apart and remain 100% consistent. As Mississippi Mudstache pointed out, each author would get certainly react differently to the uncooperativeness of Trump.

Jesus.  If you actually read the links you provided it's laid out there.

Those links are a good example of why context matters.

On the surface, that really seems like some biased bullshit.  When you actually read the context of the comments that is laid out by the articles though, it's clear why they were viewed differently.

Thanks, I considered the context and still agree with what I posted. Also think of the perception most people get from this. We're a well-educated group who can have reasonable discussions on these matters. I'd imagine most Trump voters have the perception of being pushed into a corner and that Trump is the solution. I never claimed that they are actually oppressed or that Trump will solve anything.

[MDM]

Jesus.  If you actually read the links you provided it's laid out there.

Those links are a good example of why context matters.
On the surface, that really seems like some biased bullshit.  When you actually read the context of the comments that is laid out by the articles though, it's clear why they were viewed differently.

Having read the explanations, I agree more with cliffhanger -- that is an example of Politifact bias against Trump (or at least, perhaps bias against a politician who declines to cite his sources).

Having also read both cited articles, Jack's interpretation seems correct: the context shows Politifact's bias laid out there.

[Northwestie]

So, let's see. Bernie's statements can be stepped backward to real data sources.  Trump's though, appear to be just made up.  And the verdict is considered biased???  Huh??

[ender]

So, let's see. Bernie's statements can be stepped backward to real data sources.  Trump's though, appear to be just made up.  And the verdict is considered biased???  Huh??

Did you even read what Jack wrote?

[RangerOne]

I wouldn't call Trump a master of anything. That just gives him too much credit, when really he just bares his unfiltered ridiculous thoughts and people eat it up for or against. He is a phenomenon born of America's, and really the worlds, obsession with the super rich. The combination of having loads of money and an unending desire to obtain media or social media coverage is enough to catapult anyone into being famous.

He is no better than any other super rich jerk off dancing around on TV, famous only for their money. He just happens to pretend to also be a successful business person when really he is just a reality TV star who happens to own some golf clubs and has his name plastered on buildings he takes no part in managing.

Trump brings literally nothing to table, he is completely anti intellectual and posses no natural leadership skills other than being the loudest voice in the room. The sad reality is that a complete useless blow hard as president may arguably do less harm than a corrupt intelligent one like Hillary. I am not making this argument but reasonably intelligent people can certainly make this argument.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

The respective campaigns' willingness to offer their sources could easily tip the balance in the authors' mind, given that both statements were pretty shaky. Ultimately it was a judgment call, and being cooperative helps to sway that judgment.

A judgement call?

I'm not sure how long it took Jack to do his research, but if the point of that site is to respond to candidate claims with a "truth-o-meter" it sure looks bad for them to do such a poor job of it.

Yes, a judgment call. Neither statement could be readily categorized as "True" or "False", so both had to be placed somewhere among the shades of gray in the middle. I hardly think that a single example of their supposed bias constitutes evidence of a systemic attempt to discredit Trump/Republicans/Conservatives. I would bet cash that I could find a similar comparison to support a hypothetical bias in the other direction (if I had the inclination, which I do not). Politifact checks out thousands of statements. There are bound to be some questionable judgments, no matter how well they try to do their job.

[Northwestie]

So, let's see. Bernie's statements can be stepped backward to real data sources.  Trump's though, appear to be just made up.  And the verdict is considered biased???  Huh??

Did you even read what Jack wrote?

Ummm.  Yea dude.  But I also read the original source and not just his opinion.

[cliffhanger]

So, let's see. Bernie's statements can be stepped backward to real data sources.  Trump's though, appear to be just made up.  And the verdict is considered biased???  Huh??

Did you even read what Jack wrote?

Ummm.  Yea dude.  But I also read the original source and not just his opinion.

In May, the bureau said the employment-population ratio for blacks ages 16 to 24 was 41.5 percent. Flipped over, that would mean that the unemployment ratio - although such a statistic is not published by the bureau - would be 58.5 percent. That’s pretty close to the 59 percent figure Trump cited, Sinclair noted.

But there are differences between the ratio and the widely used unemployment rate, which Trump used in citing the percentage.

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/donald-trump/trump-misleadingly-puts-black-youth-unemployment-r/

So your claim is that Trump pulled the 59% number out of his ass during a speech in June when a BLS report in May had a 41.5% employment-pop ratio (58.5% unemployment-pop)? That 0.5% difference is just a coincidence? As others have pointed out, the Trump campaign never pointed to a specific source. So, we can't know for sure if that's what he's referring to.

I'm sure we can agree that the employment-population ratio isn't the standard used and claiming that as unemployment rate is a mistake at best, misleading at worst. Let's look at Sander's verdict for PolitiFact's opinion on this:

Sanders said that for African-Americans between the ages of 17 and 20, "the real unemployment rate … is 51 percent." His terminology was off, but the numbers he used check out, and his general point was correct -- that in an apples-to-apples comparison, African-American youth have significantly worse prospects in the job market than either Hispanics or whites do. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/13/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-real-unemployment-rate-african/

[Northwestie]

If the point is that Trump used "wrong terminology" but was correct in some vague, general sense - I'd agree. 

But somehow that the entire media is biased against Trump??  The guy is a clown and is getting the ridicule he deserves.  I notice that now Trump is now limiting his interviews to the Roger Ailes (sexual predator)-owned Faux News.  How fitting.

[Midwest]

If the point is that Trump used "wrong terminology" but was correct in some vague, general sense - I'd agree. 

But somehow that the entire media is biased against Trump??  The guy is a clown and is getting the ridicule he deserves.  I notice that now Trump is now limiting his interviews to the Roger Ailes (sexual predator)-owned Faux News.  How fitting.

That's an interesting criticism of Trump, considering Hillary won't do a press conference and is married to a sexual predator.

[Northwestie]

If the point is that Trump used "wrong terminology" but was correct in some vague, general sense - I'd agree. 

But somehow that the entire media is biased against Trump??  The guy is a clown and is getting the ridicule he deserves.  I notice that now Trump is now limiting his interviews to the Roger Ailes (sexual predator)-owned Faux News.  How fitting.

Hillary won't do a press conference and is married to a sexual predator.

Trump wants to hump his daughter and has orange hair - it's like a mean, deviant Carrottop. 

[Midwest]

If the point is that Trump used "wrong terminology" but was correct in some vague, general sense - I'd agree. 

But somehow that the entire media is biased against Trump??  The guy is a clown and is getting the ridicule he deserves.  I notice that now Trump is now limiting his interviews to the Roger Ailes (sexual predator)-owned Faux News.  How fitting.

Hillary won't do a press conference and is married to a sexual predator.

Trump wants to hump his daughter and has orange hair - it's like a mean, deviant Carrottop.

To be fair Trump's daughter is much more attractive than Chelsea ; ).

The daughter comment by Trump was odd.

[Northwestie]

If the point is that Trump used "wrong terminology" but was correct in some vague, general sense - I'd agree. 

But somehow that the entire media is biased against Trump??  The guy is a clown and is getting the ridicule he deserves.  I notice that now Trump is now limiting his interviews to the Roger Ailes (sexual predator)-owned Faux News.  How fitting.

Hillary won't do a press conference and is married to a sexual predator.

Trump wants to hump his daughter and has orange hair - it's like a mean, deviant Carrottop.

To be fair Trump's daughter is much more attractive than Chelsea ; ).

The daughter comment by Trump was odd.

I'm making a big bowl of popcorn for the debates.  Trump is going to get skewered. 

[oldtoyota]

If the point is that Trump used "wrong terminology" but was correct in some vague, general sense - I'd agree. 

But somehow that the entire media is biased against Trump??  The guy is a clown and is getting the ridicule he deserves.  I notice that now Trump is now limiting his interviews to the Roger Ailes (sexual predator)-owned Faux News.  How fitting.

Hillary won't do a press conference and is married to a sexual predator.

Trump wants to hump his daughter and has orange hair - it's like a mean, deviant Carrottop.

To be fair Trump's daughter is much more attractive than Chelsea ; ).

The daughter comment by Trump was odd.

I'm making a big bowl of popcorn for the debates.  Trump is going to get skewered.

I want to bet on how long it takes Trump to mention Monica. I say two minutes.

[ender]

I'm making a big bowl of popcorn for the debates.  Trump is going to get skewered.

From a certain point of view he might get skewered, but putting Trump vs Clinton on a public stage in front of the world is pretty much giving Trump a huge stage to do what he does well.

Only time will tell. I have no doubt Clinton will "win" the debate on policy but I am fairly skeptical the debates will help her as far as the election goes.

[forummm]

If the point is that Trump used "wrong terminology" but was correct in some vague, general sense - I'd agree. 

But somehow that the entire media is biased against Trump??  The guy is a clown and is getting the ridicule he deserves.  I notice that now Trump is now limiting his interviews to the Roger Ailes (sexual predator)-owned Faux News.  How fitting.

Hillary won't do a press conference and is married to a sexual predator.

Trump wants to hump his daughter and has orange hair - it's like a mean, deviant Carrottop.

To be fair Trump's daughter is much more attractive than Chelsea ; ).

The daughter comment by Trump was odd.

Yes. And then he kept repeating it.

[MoneyCat]

According to my uncle, Trump is the best candidate because he has lots of money and a hot wife and he's going to get rid of all those rapist Mexicans who are stealing our jobs picking apples at the orchard. Sounds legit.

[Metric Mouse]

If the point is that Trump used "wrong terminology" but was correct in some vague, general sense - I'd agree. 

But somehow that the entire media is biased against Trump??  The guy is a clown and is getting the ridicule he deserves.  I notice that now Trump is now limiting his interviews to the Roger Ailes (sexual predator)-owned Faux News.  How fitting.

Hillary won't do a press conference and is married to a sexual predator.

Trump wants to hump his daughter and has orange hair - it's like a mean, deviant Carrottop.

You seem to know alot of what goes on in Trump's head. Interesting taht you have such insight.

[deadlymonkey]

If the point is that Trump used "wrong terminology" but was correct in some vague, general sense - I'd agree. 

But somehow that the entire media is biased against Trump??  The guy is a clown and is getting the ridicule he deserves.  I notice that now Trump is now limiting his interviews to the Roger Ailes (sexual predator)-owned Faux News.  How fitting.

Hillary won't do a press conference and is married to a sexual predator.

Trump wants to hump his daughter and has orange hair - it's like a mean, deviant Carrottop.

You seem to know alot of what goes on in Trump's head. Interesting taht you have such insight.

I think he was referencing the many times in the past that Trump has commented on Ivanka's breasts and how if she wasn't his daughter he would totally date her.

[GuitarStv]

If the point is that Trump used "wrong terminology" but was correct in some vague, general sense - I'd agree. 

But somehow that the entire media is biased against Trump??  The guy is a clown and is getting the ridicule he deserves.  I notice that now Trump is now limiting his interviews to the Roger Ailes (sexual predator)-owned Faux News.  How fitting.

Hillary won't do a press conference and is married to a sexual predator.

Trump wants to hump his daughter and has orange hair - it's like a mean, deviant Carrottop.

You seem to know alot of what goes on in Trump's head. Interesting taht you have such insight.

“You know who’s one of the great beauties of the world, according to everybody? And I helped create her. Ivanka. My daughter, Ivanka. She’s 6 feet tall, she’s got the best body." - Trump discussing his daughter

“It would be really disappointing — not really — but it would depend on what’s inside the magazine. I don’t think Ivanka would do that, although she does have a very nice figure. I’ve said if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.” - Trump discussing if his daughter would pose in Playboy

“Yeah, she’s really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren’t happily married and, ya know, her father . . . ” - Trump discussing his daughter

"Well, I was going to say sex, but I can't really . . . " - Trump answering what his favorite thing in common with his daughter is.


What insight would you draw from his comments?

[nobodyspecial]

“You know who’s one of the great beauties of the world, according to everybody? And I helped create her. Ivanka. My daughter, Ivanka. She’s 6 feet tall, she’s got the best body." -
...
What insight would you draw from his comments?

That evolution by inherited genes is definitely wrong?
Perhaps an appeal to creationists ?

[Gin1984]

“You know who’s one of the great beauties of the world, according to everybody? And I helped create her. Ivanka. My daughter, Ivanka. She’s 6 feet tall, she’s got the best body." -
...
What insight would you draw from his comments?

That evolution by inherited genes is definitely wrong?
Perhaps an appeal to creationists ?

Thanks for the laugh

[Metric Mouse]

“You know who’s one of the great beauties of the world, according to everybody? And I helped create her. Ivanka. My daughter, Ivanka. She’s 6 feet tall, she’s got the best body." -
...
What insight would you draw from his comments?

That evolution by inherited genes is definitely wrong?
Perhaps an appeal to creationists ?

Or that he's very proud of his daughter, and very terrible with words. Or, you know, one could immediately think incest.  Whatever crumbles your cookie.

[GuitarStv]

“You know who’s one of the great beauties of the world, according to everybody? And I helped create her. Ivanka. My daughter, Ivanka. She’s 6 feet tall, she’s got the best body." -
...
What insight would you draw from his comments?

That evolution by inherited genes is definitely wrong?
Perhaps an appeal to creationists ?

Or that he's very proud of his daughter, and very terrible with words. Or, you know, one could immediately think incest.  Whatever crumbles your cookie.

Trump knows words though, he has the best words.

[Midwest]

“You know who’s one of the great beauties of the world, according to everybody? And I helped create her. Ivanka. My daughter, Ivanka. She’s 6 feet tall, she’s got the best body." -
...
What insight would you draw from his comments?

That evolution by inherited genes is definitely wrong?
Perhaps an appeal to creationists ?

Or that he's very proud of his daughter, and very terrible with words. Or, you know, one could immediately think incest.  Whatever crumbles your cookie.

Trump knows words though, he has the best words.

Amazing words.  The best.  Just like his daughters figure.

[dividendman]

Trump knows words though, he has the best words.

Amazing words.  The best.  Just like his daughters figure.

How can you not vote for Trump?

He'll make the best deals, great deals.

He loves the Hispanics, the blacks, the poorly educated, and has so much love.

He'll go after ISIS, and I mean really go after them, they'd wish they weren't there.

He'll be great for the economy, so great.

Some people, not him, but some people say he will win all of the electoral votes.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

Trump knows words though, he has the best words.

Amazing words.  The best.  Just like his daughters figure.

How can you not vote for Trump?

He'll make the best deals, great deals.

He loves the Hispanics, the blacks, the poorly educated, and has so much love.

He'll go after ISIS, and I mean really go after them, they'd wish they weren't there.

He'll be great for the economy, so great.

Some people, not him, but some people say he will win all of the electoral votes.

Wow, who can argue with that? I feel so compelled!

[Northwestie]

Trump knows words though, he has the best words.

Amazing words.  The best.  Just like his daughters figure.

How can you not vote for Trump?

He'll make the best deals, great deals.

He loves the Hispanics, the blacks, the poorly educated, and has so much love.

He'll go after ISIS, and I mean really go after them, they'd wish they weren't there.

He'll be great for the economy, so great.

Some people, not him, but some people say he will win all of the electoral votes.

Wow, who can argue with that? I feel so compelled!

Plus we would have a really hot First Lady.

[oldtoyota]

Trump knows words though, he has the best words.

Amazing words.  The best.  Just like his daughters figure.

How can you not vote for Trump?

He'll make the best deals, great deals.

He loves the Hispanics, the blacks, the poorly educated, and has so much love.

He'll go after ISIS, and I mean really go after them, they'd wish they weren't there.

He'll be great for the economy, so great.

Some people, not him, but some people say he will win all of the electoral votes.

And he's building a wall.

[tonysemail]

“It would be really disappointing — not really — but it would depend on what’s inside the magazine. I don’t think Ivanka would do that, although she does have a very nice figure. I’ve said if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.” - Trump discussing if his daughter would pose in Playboy

holy shit, really?
I'm just floored.
how is this man running for president?

[Northwestie]

“It would be really disappointing — not really — but it would depend on what’s inside the magazine. I don’t think Ivanka would do that, although she does have a very nice figure. I’ve said if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.” - Trump discussing if his daughter would pose in Playboy

holy shit, really?
I'm just floored.
how is this man running for president?

The guy is a moron.  It says mounds about the GOP voters.