Trump Voters.... why?

[a plan comes together]

I think many people will not vote a party line but will use their brains to vote.  Although, I often vote democrat I do not always do that. I look at the person, issues, etc.  Anyone with half a brain would have voted for Cheney over Trump (democrat or not).  I am older  and do not know 1 person voting for Trump-even people that usually vote Republican.

I'd like to agree w/ you there, but couldn't disagree more. He's still polling around 40%.

You can't get to 40% unless those who don't like him support him anyways b/c they are sticking w/ party (regardless of how utterly horrible the nominee is. I mean for real.... pick any 1980's child TV star that is still alive and they'd be a better candidate). The sad irony here is they are doing their party a major disservice. 4 years of his awful leadership would effectively be the end of the Republican party (or the country/world, whichever comes first). Might be wiser to swallow the HRC pill than let that happen.

Then there are the legitimate troubled souls who identify with a racist, bigoted, divisive, uninformed, hateful propagandist. Those looking for someone else to blame and hate other than themselves. They don't vote w/ their brains.

Either way, it's pretty messed up. It was so much easier to be a Republican when the racism and bigotry was veiled instead of out in the open like this.

[thd7t]

Well, I am a Clinton supporter, but Trump made a masterful move, today (in the midst of a bad day). After Obama called on Republicans to stop backing Trump, he refused to endorse McCain and Ryan. Both of them delayed in endorsing him and criticized him yesterday. Now, if they withdraw their endorsements, he can make it look like they expected quid pro quo. He also got to strike back at them. They are trapped. It was a masterful move.

[a plan comes together]

Well, I am a Clinton supporter, but Trump made a masterful move, today (in the midst of a bad day). After Obama called on Republicans to stop backing Trump, he refused to endorse McCain and Ryan. Both of them delayed in endorsing him and criticized him yesterday. Now, if they withdraw their endorsements, he can make it look like they expected quid pro quo. He also got to strike back at them. They are trapped. It was a masterful move.

Trump is horrible at most things, but political maneuvering is not one of them.

[arebelspy]

Well, I am a Clinton supporter, but Trump made a masterful move, today (in the midst of a bad day). After Obama called on Republicans to stop backing Trump, he refused to endorse McCain and Ryan. Both of them delayed in endorsing him and criticized him yesterday. Now, if they withdraw their endorsements, he can make it look like they expected quid pro quo. He also got to strike back at them. They are trapped. It was a masterful move.

Perhaps more importantly, it's a pretty dick/baller move, which his supporters LOVE.

Look at the title of this Washington Post article: "Trump refuses to endorse Paul Ryan in GOP primary: ‘I’m just not quite there yet’ "

Even I can appreciate it as amusing, so of course it'll make his supporters happy.

[dramaman]

I think your interpretation on being vs doing is a bit simplistic. Even so, a tax cheat is an illegal as long as the money he stole from the government remains unpaid.

No, a tax cheat is only committing crimes on the day he files his returns. If you file false returns in 2013, 2014, and 2015 you get charged with three counts*, not 3 * 365 counts (one per day) or 3* 365 * 24 * 60 * 60 counts (one per second).

A person with a broken taillight is an illegal until he gets it fixed.

That's a better example, but even then the person is only continuing to offend while he is driving.

What is wrong with Undocumented Person?

Because, like somebody else pointed out, it sounds like a mere clerical error, which is inaccurate. Illegal immigrants are not merely undocumented, they were refused documentation and came over anyway.

(* or it might be 3 times the number of errors, or number of documents filed or something. Not being a tax cheat, I don't know. The point is, you don't get charged continuously just because you didn't get caught immediately.)

I think you are straining gnats to be able to explain away how only those breaking immigration law are qualified to be labeled an Illegal.

I can't help but think that the only reason you think Undocumented Person is not accurate because it is not it doesn't sound pejorative enough. It doesn't inspire the same feeling of condemnation and threat. Heaven forbid a group of people we want to fear and hate might sound innocuous.

Perhaps some of us prefer the term Undocumented Person because we actually don't view them as threats or objects of condemnation. We see them as people who faced few prospects in their country of origin and saw America as the land of opportunity and wanted to have better lives for themselves and their families. We see them as victims of a broken immigration system. Yes, they broke the law, but they are no more criminals than you or I and they have suffered consequences for their actions - paying exorbitant sums and risking life and limb to come here, some never making it. And once here they find themselves working jobs that most Americans wouldn't want no matter how much you paid without legal protections, easily victimized because they can't go to the police, paying social security taxes that they will never be able to collect. Yet they endure all this because they believe in the dream of America.

The fact that they came to this country illegally is just one small aspect of who these people are and to simply describe them as Illegal Immigrants or even worse Illegals is intentionally demeaning and dehumanizing.

[dramaman]

Well, I am a Clinton supporter, but Trump made a masterful move, today (in the midst of a bad day). After Obama called on Republicans to stop backing Trump, he refused to endorse McCain and Ryan. Both of them delayed in endorsing him and criticized him yesterday. Now, if they withdraw their endorsements, he can make it look like they expected quid pro quo. He also got to strike back at them. They are trapped. It was a masterful move.

Perhaps more importantly, it's a pretty dick/baller move, which his supporters LOVE.

Look at the title of this Washington Post article: "Trump refuses to endorse Paul Ryan in GOP primary: ‘I’m just not quite there yet’ "

Even I can appreciate it as amusing, so of course it'll make his supporters happy.

This. Trump is not the masterful strategist. He is simply a narcissistic bully and can't help but respond this way to anyone who doesn't give him the respect he thinks he deserves. The fact that i this appeals to a significant number of people is merely serendipitous.

[golden1]

He is both a narcissistic bully AND a good media strategist.  The two are not mutually exclusive.  In fact, they compliment each other well. 

The Republican establishment is so screwed after this election, no matter what the result. 

[ender]

This. Trump is not the masterful strategist. He is simply a narcissistic bully and can't help but respond this way to anyone who doesn't give him the respect he thinks he deserves. The fact that i this appeals to a significant number of people is merely serendipitous.

You can lament and whine about him not being a masterful strategist and call him names or stupid, but the reality is he did get the Republican nomination.

Many, many people have this as a goal for their entire lives and never succeed. You might not agree with his tactics but acting as if he didn't have a strategy and implement it in order to get the nomination is naive.

Oh, I think the Donald is going to auger right into the ground on this one.  Wait until the debates - shoot, in an interview he didn't seem to know that Crimea had been invaded by Russia, couldn't figure out the difference between the Kurds and the Cuds Forces, nor does he understand the difference between Hamas and Hezbollah.  These are items any 16 year old who occasionally watches the news or reads a paper will know.  Trump says he'll become knowledgeable on the subjects "when he needs to be" (!!!???) and will "hire good people".

One thing to keep in mind is that Trump cares approximately 0% about needing to "look good" and just fires back whatever is on his mind. Almost all other politicians will do everything they possibly can to make themselves look good, whereas Trump doesn't care.

Doesn't change his knowledge but makes Mark Twain's quote more relevant on the subject:

It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

[hoping2retire35]

To the OP, this will explain it pretty well
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-is-shocking-vulgar-and-right-213572

[a plan comes together]

Has this past week changed anything for Trump supporters?
1. Endless attacks on the Gold Star Khan family, b/c he just can't take the high road
2. Lying about getting a letter from the NFL (so he can start to weasel out of the debates)
3. Purple Heart "the easy way"
4. Lying about his relationship with Putin (said he does not have one or met with him, when he's said 3 times in the past he has)
5. Not realizing Russia was already occupying Ukraine
6. Known Republicans starting to cut losses and deflect to Clinton
7. Treason
8. Not endorsing Ryan/McConnell/McCain, despite them supporting him
9. Respected clinical psychiatrists coming out and diagnosing his pathological lying and narcissism

He's never been on the rails, but now he's setting the train on fire.

Anyone still on board with this guy?

If so, hopefully this article makes you re-think your support: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/01/opinion/worthy-of-our-contempt.html

"Donald Trump said some more disgusting things over the weekend. If this surprises you, you haven’t been paying attention. Also, don’t be surprised if a majority of Republicans approve of his attack on the parents of a dead war hero. After all, a YouGov survey found that 61 percent of Republicans support his call for Russian hacking of Hillary Clinton.

But this isn’t a column about Mr. Trump and the people who are O.K. with anything he says or does. It is, instead, about Republicans — probably a minority within the party, but a substantial one — who aren’t like that. These are people who aren’t racists, respect patriots even if they’re Muslim, believe that America should honor its international commitments, and in general sound like normal members of a normal political party.

Yet the great majority of these not-crazy Republicans are still supporting Mr. Trump for president. And we have a right to ask why.

True, a Clinton victory would mean a continuation of the center-left governance we’ve had under Barack Obama, which would be a big disappointment for those who want a turn to the right. And many people have convinced themselves that ideology aside, Mrs. Clinton would be a bad president. Obviously I disagree on the ideology, and while we won’t know about a Clinton presidency until or unless it happens, I find much to admire in the real Hillary, who is nothing like the caricature. But never mind: even if you’re a conservative who really dislikes the Democratic candidate, how can you justify choosing Donald Trump?

Put it this way: Is there any reason to believe that a Clinton victory would lead to irretrievable disaster? Because that’s the question you should be asking yourself.

Start with the least important issue (even if it is my specialty), economics. If you’re a Republican, you presumably believe that center-left policies — higher taxes on top incomes, a big subsidized expansion of health insurance, tighter financial regulation — are bad for the economy. But even if you think the Obama economy should have been better, the fact is that we’ve added 11 million private-sector jobs; stocks are way up; inflation and interest rates have stayed low; the budget deficit has withered away.

So it’s not a disaster, and there’s no reason to believe that a Clinton economy would be a disaster either. Meanwhile, Mr. Trump is talking about wildly irresponsible tax cuts, renegotiating debt, and ripping up trade agreements.

Moving up the scale of importance, what about national security? Even if you think that President Obama could have gotten better results by bombing more and talking less, there’s just no way to paint Mrs. Clinton — who has the support of many retired military leaders — as some kind of pushover for terrorists and foreign aggressors. Meanwhile, her opponent talks about abandoning NATO allies if they don’t pay up and seems fine with Russian adventurism in Ukraine.

Most important of all is the question of democracy at home.

I know, conservatives like to complain that Mr. Obama has overstepped his authority by, say, using administrative discretion to delay some provisions of the Affordable Care Act. But let’s be serious: no non-crazy person, even on the right, thinks that this president is acting like a dictator, or that the woman he wants to succeed him would threaten basic liberty. On the other side, anyone watching her opponent has to be very, very worried about his authoritarian streak.

The bottom line is that even if you don’t like Mrs. Clinton or what she stands for, it’s hard to see how you could view her possible victory with horror. And it’s hard to see how you could view Mr. Trump’s possible victory any other way.

How, then, can rational Republicans justify supporting Mr. Trump, or even remaining neutral, which is in effect giving him half a vote?

For rank-and-file Republicans, it’s presumably about feelings. Having spent so many years denouncing Democrats in general and Mrs. Clinton in particular, they have a hard time admitting that someone else could be much, much worse. But democracy isn’t about making a statement, it’s about exercising responsibility. And indulging your feelings at a time like this amounts to dereliction of your duty as a citizen.

And whatever one may say about ordinary voters, the real sinners here are Republican leaders — people like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell — who are actively supporting a candidate they know poses a danger to the nation.

It’s not hard to see why they’re doing this. Opposing their party’s nominee, no matter how awful he is, would probably end up being a career killer.

But there are times when you’re supposed to put such considerations aside. The willingness of some people who know better to support Donald Trump is understandable; it’s also despicable."


By virtue of being on this forum, you're at least a semi-intelligent human being. So I ask you - have you no decency?

[arebelspy]

Has this past week changed anything for Trump supporters?
1. Endless attacks on the Gold Star Khan family, b/c he just can't take the high road
2. Lying about getting a letter from the NFL (so he can start to weasel out of the debates)
3. Purple Heart "the easy way"
4. Lying about his relationship with Putin (said he does not have one or met with him, when he's said 3 times in the past he has)
5. Not realizing Russia was already occupying Ukraine
6. Known Republicans starting to cut losses and deflect to Clinton
7. Treason
8. Not endorsing Ryan/McConnell/McCain, despite them supporting him
9. Respected clinical psychiatrists coming out and diagnosing his pathological lying and narcissism

He's never been on the rails, but now he's setting the train on fire.

Second, but probably not last, time I'll say it in this thread:
Why do you think the people voting for him care about any of these things?  None of that matters in this election.

Clearly you don't get why people are voting for him, or his appeal.  But the type of person who is a Trump fan doesn't give a * about any of the things you listed, and several of them are GOOD things, to them.

It's an intellectual problem you're having.  You think facts are relevant, but sadly, they aren't.  And when they aren't, intelligence is irrelevant as well, so your final question in the post has no meaning.

[GuitarStv]

Saw this thought experiment on a clifp's Facebook page.. If you're a Democrat, picture this:

Imagine it's 2008,and the Republican have nominated Dick Cheney for Presidency. Much to many people's amazement the Democrats have nominated Donald Trump*.

*Before you say it's ludicrous, remember that he was registered Democrat for large parts of his life, and his positions obviously would have shifted depending on who he was catering to.. plus Trump's position on Trade, universal health care, foreign wars, and Wall St, the rigged system are all already much closer to Bernie Sanders's than traditional Republican views.  But ignore the plausibility either way for this thought experiment, no need to argue about this part.

Most Democrats leaders have tepidly endorsed him. "Trump isn't perfect but he's better than evil Dick Cheney." How many of you Democrats would vote for evil Cheney over Trump there? That's pretty much how most Republicans are feeling now when thinking about voting for evil Hillary over Trump.

This is an interesting perspective and a valid question.  I hope that I would still vote for the candidate with experience and at least some gravitas and a modicum of decency over the reality TV star/beauty pageant/strip club owner with multiple bankruptcies.

I don't doubt that a number of liberals would make that kind of deal with the devil. That doesn't mean it isn't a deal with the devil.

That's an interesting post ARS.  In that situation I'd be inclined to vote Green.  Guess that explains the up-swell of attention the Libertarian party has been getting this year. . .

[Metric Mouse]

That's an interesting post ARS.  In that situation I'd be inclined to vote Green.  Guess that explains the up-swell of attention the Libertarian party has been getting this year. . .

Back in the day, the Simpsons used to get it right.... "Go ahead, throw your vote away!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAT_BuJAI70

[GuitarStv]

That's an interesting post ARS.  In that situation I'd be inclined to vote Green.  Guess that explains the up-swell of attention the Libertarian party has been getting this year. . .

Back in the day, the Simpsons used to get it right.... "Go ahead, throw your vote away!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAT_BuJAI70

Given the choice between an unqualified idiot, and a truly evil person . . . throwing the vote away is preferable.

[Metric Mouse]

That's an interesting post ARS.  In that situation I'd be inclined to vote Green.  Guess that explains the up-swell of attention the Libertarian party has been getting this year. . .

Back in the day, the Simpsons used to get it right.... "Go ahead, throw your vote away!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAT_BuJAI70

Given the choice between an unqualified idiot, and a truly evil person . . . throwing the vote away is preferable.

Personally, I agree with you.  But might lean more libertarian, personally.  Or write-in Bernie?

[thd7t]

Has this past week changed anything for Trump supporters?
1. Endless attacks on the Gold Star Khan family, b/c he just can't take the high road
2. Lying about getting a letter from the NFL (so he can start to weasel out of the debates)
3. Purple Heart "the easy way"
4. Lying about his relationship with Putin (said he does not have one or met with him, when he's said 3 times in the past he has)
5. Not realizing Russia was already occupying Ukraine
6. Known Republicans starting to cut losses and deflect to Clinton
7. Treason
8. Not endorsing Ryan/McConnell/McCain, despite them supporting him
9. Respected clinical psychiatrists coming out and diagnosing his pathological lying and narcissism

He's never been on the rails, but now he's setting the train on fire.

Second, but probably not last, time I'll say it in this thread:
Why do you think the people voting for him care about any of these things?  None of that matters in this election.

Clearly you don't get why people are voting for him, or his appeal.  But the type of person who is a Trump fan doesn't give a * about any of the things you listed, and several of them are GOOD things, to them.

It's an intellectual problem you're having.  You think facts are relevant, but sadly, they aren't.  And when they aren't, intelligence is irrelevant as well, so your final question in the post has no meaning.

This is true, but it ignores the larger picture. Trump won't win because of his "fans". He needs to gather a larger group, including some people who are not just into the cult of personality. His victory depends on these margins, not just "Trump voters".

[arebelspy]

This is true, but it ignores the larger picture. Trump won't win because of his "fans". He needs to gather a larger group, including some people who are not just into the cult of personality. His victory depends on these margins, not just "Trump voters".

We'll see.  Hopefully you're right.  If so, we probably don't have much to worry about.  I'm not so sure.

[thd7t]

This is true, but it ignores the larger picture. Trump won't win because of his "fans". He needs to gather a larger group, including some people who are not just into the cult of personality. His victory depends on these margins, not just "Trump voters".

We'll see.  Hopefully you're right.  If so, we probably don't have much to worry about.  I'm not so sure.

This campaign is all about which candidate can make the other look worse. Either may win by making the other look so bad that voters don't turn out. Low turnout is a real danger.

[hoping2retire35]

Those of us who will be voting for Trump and are at least semi-intelligent, as you say, will do so because he has burned down the Republican party and will burn down the US government.

Everyone realizes Trump is the best person to do this. Think of this as a soft revolution. People are MAD and want something to change. No real violence or arm bands or whatever but basically the traditional power structures are diminished and something else will be formed. I don't think trump will rebuild anything, someone else(the next president presumably) will have to do that.

Maybe that helps to make sense of the situation?

[arebelspy]

Those of us who will be voting for Trump and are at least semi-intelligent, as you say, will do so because he has burned down the Republican party and will burn down the US government.

Everyone realizes Trump is the best person to do this. Think of this as a soft revolution. People are MAD and want something to change. No real violence or arm bands or whatever but basically the traditional power structures are diminished and something else will be formed. I don't think trump will rebuild anything, someone else(the next president presumably) will have to do that.

Maybe that helps to make sense of the situation?

I don't feel like electing a blowhard against one's own best interests works out that nicely (see, for example, Berlusconi), and it causes all sorts of negative consequences in the meantime. 

[ender]

This is true, but it ignores the larger picture. Trump won't win because of his "fans". He needs to gather a larger group, including some people who are not just into the cult of personality. His victory depends on these margins, not just "Trump voters".

The part you (and pretty much everyone here it seems) don't understand is that not everyone is like you. Not everyone shares a upper middle class worldview. Even some that do will still will disagree.

There are plenty of people who on a regular basis experience problems/difficulties that they believe are directly caused by the problems Trump focuses on. It's dumbfounding to me that so many people seem oblivious as to why so many people support Trump.  Particularly when paired up against Clinton, who is being lauded  as exactly the type of person that Trump needs her to be portrayed as in order to win the election - his position increases the more firmly Clinton is shown to be a career politician, one with lots of experience, one who knows how the system works, etc.

In my opinion, the more firmly Clinton is branded as an experienced career politician, the more likely Trump is to win the election.

The Republican party was oblivious to this. I suspect Democrats will be until far too late, too.

This campaign is all about which candidate can make the other look worse. Either may win by making the other look so bad that voters don't turn out. Low turnout is a real danger.

Eh, I think low voter turnout is only a danger for the Clinton campaign. I think Trump will handily become President Trump if voter turnout ends up lower than normal.

Those of us who will be voting for Trump and are at least semi-intelligent, as you say, will do so because he has burned down the Republican party and will burn down the US government.

Everyone realizes Trump is the best person to do this. Think of this as a soft revolution. People are MAD and want something to change. No real violence or arm bands or whatever but basically the traditional power structures are diminished and something else will be formed. I don't think trump will rebuild anything, someone else(the next president presumably) will have to do that.

Maybe that helps to make sense of the situation?

I agree that this is a huge driver for Trump's popularity and exactly why I said what I said above. Trump can just brand Hillary as a career politician and be typical Trump, "do you really want another career politician like the past X years? Are you happy with the job your politicians have been doing for the past X years?" and it will resonate with people. People are just SICK of politicians. Approval ratings are ridiculously low. People want change (on both sides even, you saw this with the surprising popularity of Bernie in the primary).

[arebelspy]

Maybe instead of the screenname Ender, you should have chosen Peter Wiggen, because that was a very accurate political analysis.  ;)

[a plan comes together]

I agree that this is a huge driver for Trump's popularity and exactly why I said what I said above. Trump can just brand Hillary as a career politician and be typical Trump, "do you really want another career politician like the past X years? Are you happy with the job your politicians have been doing for the past X years?" and it will resonate with people. People are just SICK of politicians. Approval ratings are ridiculously low. People want change (on both sides even, you saw this with the surprising popularity of Bernie in the primary).

I get the motivations. It's just sad b/c of how misdirected they are.

Trump's voter base is overwhelmingly white, uneducated males (there are polls on this).
So, why are white, uneducated males so angry?

Whether they realize it or not - trickle down economic theory, endless attacks on unions (which protected their jobs and wages), globalism, and money in politics are the biggest culprits.

The sad part is "burn it to the ground" does nothing to help them. America is still the world's top economic player. Burning things to the ground won't change that for the better. Reductions in civil liberties and diminished status in the world is not a solution.

The Republican Party has endlessly tried to drive down wages/rights of the blue collar class, but at the same time, globalism has done the same.

Globalism is not going to change in their favor. Economists have shown that over the tens of millions of manufacturing jobs lost, we'd get maybe at max 2 million back by tearing up all of our trade agreements (while we could lose just as many by making American companies less competitive). And some economic trends (i.e. a move away from dirty coal) aren't going to reverse.

So what can they influence?

You want to get money out of politics? Start by supporting the party that wants to do the same and overturn Citizens United.

You want to see jobs created by much needed infrastructure improvements? Vote for the party that wants to do that.

You want to have more of a social safety net that can help you get educated, get health insurance, improve Social Security? Vote for the party that wants to do that.

You want to get paid more? Vote for the party that wants to raise the minimum wage.

Voting for Republicans is the literal embodiment of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Again... none of this prob. matters, b/c it's all about fear and anger and hate feelings and blaming others, sadly. Sigh....

[Jack]

I can't help but think that the only reason you think Undocumented Person is not accurate because it is not it doesn't sound pejorative enough. It doesn't inspire the same feeling of condemnation and threat. Heaven forbid a group of people we want to fear and hate might sound innocuous.

Your biases and misconceptions are your own problem, not mine. I think "undocumented person" is not accurate because it's factually not accurate -- no other reason.

If you want to think up some other term that's accurate but less pejorative, have at it!

[Jack]

I get the motivations. It's just sad b/c of how misdirected they are.

Trump's voter base is overwhelmingly white, uneducated males (there are polls on this).
So, why are white, uneducated males so angry?

Whether they realize it or not - trickle down economic theory, endless attacks on unions (which protected their jobs and wages), globalism, and money in politics are the biggest culprits.

To be fair, at least part of Trump's platform (to the extent he has a coherent platform anyway, which isn't much) has included claims of improvement for at least the latter two issues.

[arebelspy]

You want to get money out of politics? Start by supporting the party that wants to do the same and overturn Citizens United.

Neither of our two major parties want this, sadly.

[acroy]

Those of us who will be voting for Trump and are at least semi-intelligent, as you say, will do so because he has burned down the Republican party and will burn down the US government.

Everyone realizes Trump is the best person to do this. Think of this as a soft revolution. People are MAD and want something to change. No real violence or arm bands or whatever but basically the traditional power structures are diminished and something else will be formed. I don't think trump will rebuild anything, someone else(the next president presumably) will have to do that.

Maybe that helps to make sense of the situation?

yeah! Trump is a big flippin middle finger to the Establishment.
I enjoyed Micheal Moore's analysis: http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/
Moore is a boor, and manages to insult everyone almost as well as Trump himself! But an interesting read. I hope America is not the nasty place he makes it out to be...

People I know who support Trump:
1) Early Adopters: were attracted to his flamboyant flag-waiving simplistic message. Mostly older baby-boomers, disenchanted Republicans who have not liked their party's leaders since Reagan
2) Midstream Adopters: enjoyed Trump's decimation of his primary rivals and switched. Remember  'Low Energy' Jeb Bush? Trump is a master at 'verbal kill shots'.
3) Hold Your Nose Voters: 'better than Hillary', cautiously optimistic.

[hoping2retire35]

.

Trump's voter base is overwhelmingly white, uneducated males (there are polls on this).
So, why are white, uneducated males so angry?

Whether they realize it or not - trickle down economic theory, endless attacks on unions (which protected their jobs and wages), globalism, and money in politics are the biggest culprits.

Bold; B/c they are mad that the nerds they went to HS with are making $150k and they are struggling to make $35k.

Next; Huh? you just laid out the exact reasons they made Donald J Trump the Republican nominee. You are confusing me.

[Jrr85]

The fact that they came to this country illegally is just one small aspect of who these people are and to simply describe them as Illegal Immigrants or even worse Illegals is intentionally demeaning and dehumanizing.

Or, you know, just a descriptive term that makes sense given the existing English language and its associated dictionaries.

The vast majority of illegal immigrants entered the country illegally in order to pursue better economic opportunities for the benefit of themselves and/or their families.  I hope I would do the same if I were in their situation.  But that doesn't mean illegal immigrant isn't the right term.  If someone unfamiliar with a phrase can look in the dictionary and have a very high likely of understanding the intent of the person using the phrase, then it's pretty silly to complain. 

[ender]

Whether they realize it or not - trickle down economic theory, endless attacks on unions (which protected their jobs and wages), globalism, and money in politics are the biggest culprits.

Conversely, they do realize it, and have no interest at all in supporting someone (Clinton) who has a fairly clear track record of supporting globalism and money in politics.

And have you read any of Trump's positions? He only has 7 "positions" on his website. But 3 of them are directly related to curbing globalism. I don't see any on Clinton's site (even under the "Economy/jobs" section only 1 appears relevant, the "Manufacturing" one). All her major issues are unrelated. Nothing in national security relates.

If you were someone who actually DID care about globalism and its effect on your job, which candidate would you think cares more about your issues?

Again... none of this prob. matters, b/c it's all about fear and anger and hate feelings and blaming others, sadly. Sigh....

See rhetoric like this contributes to why I think Trump will ultimately win. People who are in the working class are continually looked down upon by people who are "educated." You even categorically call Trump's supporters uneducated. The stronger this line is pushed, or variants of it ("if you were educated, you'd see your problems are fixed by us") the stronger the divide between Clinton and the working class becomes. In some ways it's a self perpetuating cycle.

The irony is Clinton is completely blowing it here. She doesn't try to relate to non-upper middle class people. Trump speaks in tangible things that people can understand. Trump has defined plans. You might think his plans are nuts but he has them. Clinton speaks in political promises exactly like normal politicians. If you read through her page on healthcare vs Trump's page on healthcare you will notice some interesting differences.

Trump is giving actionable items. He has defined plans. You can disagree with them, but he gives a list of action items (for all his positions, not just healthcare). With the exception of expanding medicare to be eligible to anyone over 55 (and some slightly-less-vague statements about illegal immigrants buying healthcare), every single item on Clinton's page is non-actionable. They are vague "I will work to fix problems!" typical politician speech. Trump's page has a lot of plans you can could actually take and do.

And frankly speaking, Trump's positions (as articulated on his website) make a lot of sense. I can read what Trump wants to do and understand it. I might disagree, but I know what he is planning on doing. I do not get the same from Clinton's site.

[Jack]

I enjoyed Micheal Moore's analysis: http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/

Hah! He even managed to characterize Millennials accurately (for once):

The Depressed Sanders Vote. Stop fretting about Bernie’s supporters not voting for Clinton – we’re voting for Clinton! The polls already show that more Sanders voters will vote for Hillary this year than the number of Hillary primary voters in ’08 who then voted for Obama. This is not the problem. The fire alarm that should be going off is that while the average Bernie backer will drag him/herself to the polls that day to somewhat reluctantly vote for Hillary, it will be what’s called a “depressed vote” – meaning the voter doesn’t bring five people to vote with her. He doesn’t volunteer 10 hours in the month leading up to the election. She never talks in an excited voice when asked why she’s voting for Hillary. A depressed voter. Because, when you’re young, you have zero tolerance for phonies and BS. Returning to the Clinton/Bush era for them is like suddenly having to pay for music, or using MySpace or carrying around one of those big-ass portable phones. They’re not going to vote for Trump; some will vote third party, but many will just stay home. [emphasis added] Hillary Clinton is going to have to do something to give them a reason to support her  — and picking a moderate, bland-o, middle of the road old white guy as her running mate is not the kind of edgy move that tells millenials that their vote is important to Hillary. Having two women on the ticket – that was an exciting idea. But then Hillary got scared and has decided to play it safe. This is just one example of how she is killing the youth vote.

Picking Elizabeth Warren (or better yet, Sanders) as her running mate would have been an "instant win" button for Hillary. Her abject refusal to do that is just another part of The Problem.

[deadlymonkey]

I enjoyed Micheal Moore's analysis: http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/

Hah! He even managed to characterize Millennials accurately (for once):

The Depressed Sanders Vote. Stop fretting about Bernie’s supporters not voting for Clinton – we’re voting for Clinton! The polls already show that more Sanders voters will vote for Hillary this year than the number of Hillary primary voters in ’08 who then voted for Obama. This is not the problem. The fire alarm that should be going off is that while the average Bernie backer will drag him/herself to the polls that day to somewhat reluctantly vote for Hillary, it will be what’s called a “depressed vote” – meaning the voter doesn’t bring five people to vote with her. He doesn’t volunteer 10 hours in the month leading up to the election. She never talks in an excited voice when asked why she’s voting for Hillary. A depressed voter. Because, when you’re young, you have zero tolerance for phonies and BS. Returning to the Clinton/Bush era for them is like suddenly having to pay for music, or using MySpace or carrying around one of those big-ass portable phones. They’re not going to vote for Trump; some will vote third party, but many will just stay home. [emphasis added] Hillary Clinton is going to have to do something to give them a reason to support her  — and picking a moderate, bland-o, middle of the road old white guy as her running mate is not the kind of edgy move that tells millenials that their vote is important to Hillary. Having two women on the ticket – that was an exciting idea. But then Hillary got scared and has decided to play it safe. This is just one example of how she is killing the youth vote.

Picking Elizabeth Warren (or better yet, Sanders) as her running mate would have been an "instant win" button for Hillary. Her abject refusal to do that is just another part of The Problem.

Sanders according to all sources had ZERO interest in being VP.  He is going to be able to exert a lot more influence in the Senate, and is too old to use VP as a ramp for a future Presidential bid.  Warren would never be selected because the Dems want to win the Senate. Warren is a senator from a state with a Republican governor.  He would appoint a R to replace her in the Senate, complicating the path for gaining control of the Senate. 

[Jack]

Sanders according to all sources had ZERO interest in being VP.  He is going to be able to exert a lot more influence in the Senate, and is too old to use VP as a ramp for a future Presidential bid.  Warren would never be selected because the Dems want to win the Senate. Warren is a senator from a state with a Republican governor.  He would appoint a R to replace her in the Senate, complicating the path for gaining control of the Senate.

Okay, fine -- then at least she should have made a show of publicly asking Sanders and letting Sanders refuse and explain that himself. Or something like that. And then she should have found the most progressive running mate she possibly could, not somebody who supports the TPP.

[Gin1984]

You want to get money out of politics? Start by supporting the party that wants to do the same and overturn Citizens United.

Neither of our two major parties want this, sadly.

That is not true Arebelspy, the dems do want to overturn Citizens United and limited the amount.

[Jack]

That is not true Arebelspy, the dems do want to overturn Citizens United and limited the amount.

The democratic base wants it. The democratic establishment politicians probably hate it (privately), but publicly claim to support it to get reelected. The proof of the pudding will be their distinct lack of alacrity and enthusiasm when it comes to actually passing an amendment about it.

[deadlymonkey]

You want to get money out of politics? Start by supporting the party that wants to do the same and overturn Citizens United.

Neither of our two major parties want this, sadly.

That is not true Arebelspy, the dems do want to overturn Citizens United and limited the amount.

Having someone publically refusing to be your VP (for any reason) just looks bad.  Think about all the potential VPs that publically took themselves out of the running for Trump, and they weren't even asked.  Just refusing to be considered looks bad.  Also, Kaine was Obama's top pick, evidently Kaine himself told Obama that they were too similar in personality and he should pick someone else that will help him more (hence biden).  His actual voting record in the senate is pretty progressive, second only to Sanders on the rankings of how liberal people are according to the Amercian Conservative Union.  ( so a conservative think thank thought he was pretty damn progressive).  Yeah he supported TPP, but has pretty much been in line with every other progressive ideal from social issues to the environment.  You can't just focus on one issue.

[acroy]

You want to get money out of politics? Start by supporting the party that wants to do the same and overturn Citizens United.

Neither of our two major parties want this, sadly.

That is not true Arebelspy, the dems do want to overturn Citizens United and limited the amount.

Interesting, I had to look it up. Found it! And right below the 'Citizens United' bit, a jewel about ending 'secret money'. Which is really funny, considering this:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-sent-cash-to-iran-as-americans-were-freed-1470181874
And the fact the secret $400M non-ransom was non-USD because 'any transaction with Iran in U.S. dollars is illegal under U.S. law.'

[deadlymonkey]

That is not true Arebelspy, the dems do want to overturn Citizens United and limited the amount.

The democratic base wants it. The democratic establishment politicians probably hate it (privately), but publicly claim to support it to get reelected. The proof of the pudding will be their distinct lack of alacrity and enthusiasm when it comes to actually passing an amendment about it.

You can just forget about an amendment.  The amount of votes needed would be impossible to reach witht he current divisiveness.  The only plan going forward, which a lot of dems support is to get the right justices on the court and overturn the ruling.  That is an actual plan.  A constitutional amendment is a pipe dream.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

Sanders according to all sources had ZERO interest in being VP.  He is going to be able to exert a lot more influence in the Senate, and is too old to use VP as a ramp for a future Presidential bid.  Warren would never be selected because the Dems want to win the Senate. Warren is a senator from a state with a Republican governor.  He would appoint a R to replace her in the Senate, complicating the path for gaining control of the Senate.

Okay, fine -- then at least she should have made a show of publicly asking Sanders and letting Sanders refuse and explain that himself. Or something like that. And then she should have found the most progressive running mate she possibly could, not somebody who supports the TPP.

Agree with monkey on this one. Hillary's VP choice was a classically pragmatic choice. Offering the job to Sanders and letting him refuse would project weakness. She didn't need to do that to get the support of his followers, anyway. 90% of Sanders supporters are already on-board with Hillary. Warren was a no-go, not only because her replacement would be a Republican, but also because Hillary's Achilles heel is not among white women, but white men, who still heavily favor Trump. Since Kaine is not a scary minority or female, he might assuage some men who are on the fence. Add to that the fact that he will help coalesce support in a swing state, and his replacement will be picked by a Democratic governor, and I think that's pretty much all you need to know about why she made her choice.

On a personal note, I'm much more of a pragmatist than an ideologue, so I'm more than pleased that Hillary made her decision based on the electoral map rather than pandering to the far-left. Also, I have little to no reservations about the TPP, so that's not even a blip in my radar screen.

[Jack]

Sanders according to all sources had ZERO interest in being VP.  He is going to be able to exert a lot more influence in the Senate, and is too old to use VP as a ramp for a future Presidential bid.  Warren would never be selected because the Dems want to win the Senate. Warren is a senator from a state with a Republican governor.  He would appoint a R to replace her in the Senate, complicating the path for gaining control of the Senate.

Okay, fine -- then at least she should have made a show of publicly asking Sanders and letting Sanders refuse and explain that himself. Or something like that. And then she should have found the most progressive running mate she possibly could, not somebody who supports the TPP.

Agree with monkey on this one. Hillary's VP choice was a classically pragmatic choice. Offering the job to Sanders and letting him refuse would project weakness. She didn't need to do that to get the support of his followers, anyway. 90% of Sanders supporters are already on-board with Hillary. Warren was a no-go, not only because her replacement would be a Republican, but also because Hillary's Achilles heel is not among white women, but white men, who still heavily favor Trump. Since Kaine is not a scary minority or female, he might assuage some men who are on the fence. Add to that the fact that he will help coalesce support in a swing state, and his replacement will be picked by a Democratic governor, and I think that's pretty much all you need to know about why she made her choice.

On a personal note, I'm much more of a pragmatist than an ideologue, so I'm more than pleased that Hillary made her decision based on the electoral map rather than pandering to the far-left. Also, I have little to no reservations about the TPP, so that's not even a blip in my radar screen.

See, that's the mistake the Michael Moore article is warning against: the "classically pragmatic" choice made in a cynical attempt to appeal to (older) white men is exactly the wrong move. Hillary doesn't need the support of older white men -- and if they are already leaning towards Trump, Tim Kaine sure as Hell isn't going to change their minds anyway. What she needs is something worthwhile and exciting enough to get that other 10% of Bernie voters. (Need I remind you that Bernie got more than 43% of the vote in the primary, so 10% of that makes a 4.3% difference in the general election?) Besides, saying that 90% of Bernie voters "support" Hillary when forced to pick between her and another candidate is one thing; the percentage who do so enthusiastically enough to be willing to get out of bed for her on election day instead of just staying home is quite another.

[deadlymonkey]

Sanders according to all sources had ZERO interest in being VP.  He is going to be able to exert a lot more influence in the Senate, and is too old to use VP as a ramp for a future Presidential bid.  Warren would never be selected because the Dems want to win the Senate. Warren is a senator from a state with a Republican governor.  He would appoint a R to replace her in the Senate, complicating the path for gaining control of the Senate.

Okay, fine -- then at least she should have made a show of publicly asking Sanders and letting Sanders refuse and explain that himself. Or something like that. And then she should have found the most progressive running mate she possibly could, not somebody who supports the TPP.

Agree with monkey on this one. Hillary's VP choice was a classically pragmatic choice. Offering the job to Sanders and letting him refuse would project weakness. She didn't need to do that to get the support of his followers, anyway. 90% of Sanders supporters are already on-board with Hillary. Warren was a no-go, not only because her replacement would be a Republican, but also because Hillary's Achilles heel is not among white women, but white men, who still heavily favor Trump. Since Kaine is not a scary minority or female, he might assuage some men who are on the fence. Add to that the fact that he will help coalesce support in a swing state, and his replacement will be picked by a Democratic governor, and I think that's pretty much all you need to know about why she made her choice.

On a personal note, I'm much more of a pragmatist than an ideologue, so I'm more than pleased that Hillary made her decision based on the electoral map rather than pandering to the far-left. Also, I have little to no reservations about the TPP, so that's not even a blip in my radar screen.

See, that's the mistake the Michael Moore article is warning against: the "classically pragmatic" choice made in a cynical attempt to appeal to (older) white men is exactly the wrong move. Hillary doesn't need the support of older white men -- and if they are already leaning towards Trump, Tim Kaine sure as Hell isn't going to change their minds anyway. What she needs is something worthwhile and exciting enough to get that other 10% of Bernie voters. (Need I remind you that Bernie got more than 43% of the vote in the primary, so 10% of that makes a 4.3% difference in the general election?) Besides, saying that 90% of Bernie voters "support" Hillary when forced to pick between her and another candidate is one thing; the percentage who do so enthusiastically enough to be willing to get out of bed for her on election day instead of just staying home is quite another.

So who should she have picked since we have ruled out both Sanders and Warren for significant reasons

[jrhampt]

Sanders according to all sources had ZERO interest in being VP.  He is going to be able to exert a lot more influence in the Senate, and is too old to use VP as a ramp for a future Presidential bid.  Warren would never be selected because the Dems want to win the Senate. Warren is a senator from a state with a Republican governor.  He would appoint a R to replace her in the Senate, complicating the path for gaining control of the Senate.

Okay, fine -- then at least she should have made a show of publicly asking Sanders and letting Sanders refuse and explain that himself. Or something like that. And then she should have found the most progressive running mate she possibly could, not somebody who supports the TPP.

Agree with monkey on this one. Hillary's VP choice was a classically pragmatic choice. Offering the job to Sanders and letting him refuse would project weakness. She didn't need to do that to get the support of his followers, anyway. 90% of Sanders supporters are already on-board with Hillary. Warren was a no-go, not only because her replacement would be a Republican, but also because Hillary's Achilles heel is not among white women, but white men, who still heavily favor Trump. Since Kaine is not a scary minority or female, he might assuage some men who are on the fence. Add to that the fact that he will help coalesce support in a swing state, and his replacement will be picked by a Democratic governor, and I think that's pretty much all you need to know about why she made her choice.

On a personal note, I'm much more of a pragmatist than an ideologue, so I'm more than pleased that Hillary made her decision based on the electoral map rather than pandering to the far-left. Also, I have little to no reservations about the TPP, so that's not even a blip in my radar screen.

Agree with all of this.  I was also happy with Hillary's VP choice.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

Sanders according to all sources had ZERO interest in being VP.  He is going to be able to exert a lot more influence in the Senate, and is too old to use VP as a ramp for a future Presidential bid.  Warren would never be selected because the Dems want to win the Senate. Warren is a senator from a state with a Republican governor.  He would appoint a R to replace her in the Senate, complicating the path for gaining control of the Senate.

Okay, fine -- then at least she should have made a show of publicly asking Sanders and letting Sanders refuse and explain that himself. Or something like that. And then she should have found the most progressive running mate she possibly could, not somebody who supports the TPP.

Agree with monkey on this one. Hillary's VP choice was a classically pragmatic choice. Offering the job to Sanders and letting him refuse would project weakness. She didn't need to do that to get the support of his followers, anyway. 90% of Sanders supporters are already on-board with Hillary. Warren was a no-go, not only because her replacement would be a Republican, but also because Hillary's Achilles heel is not among white women, but white men, who still heavily favor Trump. Since Kaine is not a scary minority or female, he might assuage some men who are on the fence. Add to that the fact that he will help coalesce support in a swing state, and his replacement will be picked by a Democratic governor, and I think that's pretty much all you need to know about why she made her choice.

On a personal note, I'm much more of a pragmatist than an ideologue, so I'm more than pleased that Hillary made her decision based on the electoral map rather than pandering to the far-left. Also, I have little to no reservations about the TPP, so that's not even a blip in my radar screen.

See, that's the mistake the Michael Moore article is warning against: the "classically pragmatic" choice made in a cynical attempt to appeal to (older) white men is exactly the wrong move. Hillary doesn't need the support of older white men -- and if they are already leaning towards Trump, Tim Kaine sure as Hell isn't going to change their minds anyway. What she needs is something worthwhile and exciting enough to get that other 10% of Bernie voters. (Need I remind you that Bernie got more than 43% of the vote in the primary, so 10% of that makes a 4.3% difference in the general election?) Besides, saying that 90% of Bernie voters "support" Hillary when forced to pick between her and another candidate is one thing; the percentage who do so enthusiastically enough to be willing to get out of bed for her on election day instead of just staying home is quite another.

I will disagree with both you and Michael Moore on that point. I think Hillary stood to lose more than she could gain by selecting a far-left VP. I suspect the die-hard Bernie supporters would be just as hard to drag aboard as the waffling white men, and there are fewer of them. I think you vastly over-estimate the size of Bernie's contingency. Yes, he got 43% of the vote in the primaries, but the primary electorate =/= the general electorate. Only 12 million people bothered to vote for Bernie in the primaries. The US electorate is ~240 million, and around 130 million will vote in the general elections.

[thd7t]

Sanders according to all sources had ZERO interest in being VP.  He is going to be able to exert a lot more influence in the Senate, and is too old to use VP as a ramp for a future Presidential bid.  Warren would never be selected because the Dems want to win the Senate. Warren is a senator from a state with a Republican governor.  He would appoint a R to replace her in the Senate, complicating the path for gaining control of the Senate.

Okay, fine -- then at least she should have made a show of publicly asking Sanders and letting Sanders refuse and explain that himself. Or something like that. And then she should have found the most progressive running mate she possibly could, not somebody who supports the TPP.

Agree with monkey on this one. Hillary's VP choice was a classically pragmatic choice. Offering the job to Sanders and letting him refuse would project weakness. She didn't need to do that to get the support of his followers, anyway. 90% of Sanders supporters are already on-board with Hillary. Warren was a no-go, not only because her replacement would be a Republican, but also because Hillary's Achilles heel is not among white women, but white men, who still heavily favor Trump. Since Kaine is not a scary minority or female, he might assuage some men who are on the fence. Add to that the fact that he will help coalesce support in a swing state, and his replacement will be picked by a Democratic governor, and I think that's pretty much all you need to know about why she made her choice.

On a personal note, I'm much more of a pragmatist than an ideologue, so I'm more than pleased that Hillary made her decision based on the electoral map rather than pandering to the far-left. Also, I have little to no reservations about the TPP, so that's not even a blip in my radar screen.

See, that's the mistake the Michael Moore article is warning against: the "classically pragmatic" choice made in a cynical attempt to appeal to (older) white men is exactly the wrong move. Hillary doesn't need the support of older white men -- and if they are already leaning towards Trump, Tim Kaine sure as Hell isn't going to change their minds anyway. What she needs is something worthwhile and exciting enough to get that other 10% of Bernie voters. (Need I remind you that Bernie got more than 43% of the vote in the primary, so 10% of that makes a 4.3% difference in the general election?) Besides, saying that 90% of Bernie voters "support" Hillary when forced to pick between her and another candidate is one thing; the percentage who do so enthusiastically enough to be willing to get out of bed for her on election day instead of just staying home is quite another.

Sanders got about 13M votes. 10% of his votes will be around 1% of the general election votes, given recent elections. 1.3 million votes is not a trivial number, but because of the electoral college system, the distribution of his votes is important. For example, his strength in CA, ID, and other solidly red or blue states will not matter much. MI should be making her sweat, because of Trump's message, but I don't believe that a VP choice will make or break her support just about anywhere.

[ender]

See, that's the mistake the Michael Moore article is warning against: the "classically pragmatic" choice made in a cynical attempt to appeal to (older) white men is exactly the wrong move. Hillary doesn't need the support of older white men -- and if they are already leaning towards Trump, Tim Kaine sure as Hell isn't going to change their minds anyway. What she needs is something worthwhile and exciting enough to get that other 10% of Bernie voters. (Need I remind you that Bernie got more than 43% of the vote in the primary, so 10% of that makes a 4.3% difference in the general election?) Besides, saying that 90% of Bernie voters "support" Hillary when forced to pick between her and another candidate is one thing; the percentage who do so enthusiastically enough to be willing to get out of bed for her on election day instead of just staying home is quite another.

One huge implication of a fairly common "only uneducated white male racists support Trump" attitude (which seems common) is the more people believe that, the more they are oblivious to the possibilities of other demographics supporting Trump. Likely? Hard to say.  All I can guarantee is that people will continually underestimate this until after the election. Whether that underestimate is minor or significant? Hard to say.

I think another mistake people make is to confuse "on board with Clinton" with "against Trump" when it comes to enthusiasm and willingness to vote.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

Sanders got about 13M votes. 10% of his votes will be around 1% of the general election votes, given recent elections. 1.3 million votes is not a trivial number, but because of the electoral college system, the distribution of his votes is important. For example, his strength in CA, ID, and other solidly red or blue states will not matter much. MI should be making her sweat, because of Trump's message, but I don't believe that a VP choice will make or break her support just about anywhere.

That's a great point as well. Look at three states that will most likely determine the outcome of the election: Hillary smoked Bernie in Florida, 1.1 million to 560K, and she won easily in Ohio (680K to 510K) and Pennsylvannia (920K to 720K). What percentage of Sanders voters in those states will sit out the general election is anyone's guess, but they were not Bernie Sanders strongholds. That's not to say that his disgruntled supporters can't hand the election to Trump, but frankly I would be more worried about consolidating the middle than the far-left.

[Northwestie]

Have you looked at the state polls??   Clinton is going to bury Trump.   http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

[ender]

Have you looked at the state polls??   Clinton is going to bury Trump.   http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

I find it hard to trust a poll where in 2 days the odds go from 50.1% Trump/49.9% Clinton to 68.4% Clinton.

[Northwestie]

Have you looked at the state polls??   Clinton is going to bury Trump.   http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

I find it hard to trust a poll where in 2 days the odds go from 50.1% Trump/49.9% Clinton to 68.4% Clinton.

the fivethirtysix absolutely nailed the last election.  I'll  take bets on Trump nose diving.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

Have you looked at the state polls??   Clinton is going to bury Trump.   http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

I find it hard to trust a poll where in 2 days the odds go from 50.1% Trump/49.9% Clinton to 68.4% Clinton.

That's not a poll; it's an election prediction model based on an aggregation of many polls. It would be worthwhile to familiarize yourself 538's prediction methodology. The Wikipedia article is good. In 2012, they correctly called all 50 states as well as D.C. The reason the model seems so schizophrenic is due to the respective "convention bounces" of both Trump and Clintion, in succession. Click over to the "polls-plus" model, which tries to take into account additional variables, such as convention bounces, economic climate, and incumency, rather than the "polls-only model". You'll see that the "polls-plus" predictions have been more stable over time. However, Nate Silver has cautioned on many occasions that the polls become more predictive about a month after the conventions, when the dust has finally settled. It's really too soon to know if Hillary's current position is just due to the effect of the convention bounce, or something more long-lived.