Focus Group of Trump Supporters Is Undeterred and Fiercely Loyal

[mystery-ak]

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/428304/print

 Focus Group of Trump Supporters Is Undeterred and Fiercely Loyal
By Elaina Plott — December 10, 2015

Straightforward. Awesome. President.

These are a handful of phrases participants used to describe Donald J. Trump in Frank Luntz’s focus group Wednesday evening, nearly all supporters of the current Republican frontrunner. They were a group filled with emotion. For one man, a changing of the guard from Obama to Trump is the stuff of which political dreams are made. “I want Trump to look at Obama on Election Day and go, ‘You’re fired.’”

But in the wake of Trump’s call this week to ban all Muslims from entering the country, which has drawn rebukes from nearly every Republican in Washington, the question Luntz came to ask was obvious: Why are you still supporting Trump?

For participants in Wednesday’s group, the more appropriate question was: Why not?

Luntz fielded the group’s responses on a variety of Trump’s most controversial statements, and, the participants — 27 Caucasians, one African American, and one Hispanic, ages 26–68 — could hardly contain their enthusiasm. “One at a time, one at a time!” Luntz interjected.

“They want to come here and blow up Americans,” one woman said, responding to Luntz’s query about her support for an all-out ban on the entry of Muslims into the country. It’s a Trump proposal that has garnered an all-out condemnation from the Right, with Paul Ryan calling it an affront to conservatism, Marco Rubio calling it “offensive and outlandish,” and Lindsey Graham calling it “race-baiting” and “xenophobic.”

continued

[sinkspur]

They were a group filled with emotion.

The basest human instinct.

[aligncare]

...on the other hand, tenacity and dedication to principle is a sign of intelligence and strong character.

Words (and a dictionary) are our friend...

[GAJohnnie]

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/428304/print

 Focus Group of Trump Supporters Is Undeterred and Fiercely Loyal
By Elaina Plott — December 10, 2015

Straightforward. Awesome. President.

These are a handful of phrases participants used to describe Donald J. Trump in Frank Luntz’s focus group Wednesday evening, nearly all supporters of the current Republican frontrunner. They were a group filled with emotion. For one man, a changing of the guard from Obama to Trump is the stuff of which political dreams are made. “I want Trump to look at Obama on Election Day and go, ‘You’re fired.’”

But in the wake of Trump’s call this week to ban all Muslims from entering the country, which has drawn rebukes from nearly every Republican in Washington, the question Luntz came to ask was obvious: Why are you still supporting Trump?

For participants in Wednesday’s group, the more appropriate question was: Why not?

Luntz fielded the group’s responses on a variety of Trump’s most controversial statements, and, the participants — 27 Caucasians, one African American, and one Hispanic, ages 26–68 — could hardly contain their enthusiasm. “One at a time, one at a time!” Luntz interjected.

“They want to come here and blow up Americans,” one woman said, responding to Luntz’s query about her support for an all-out ban on the entry of Muslims into the country. It’s a Trump proposal that has garnered an all-out condemnation from the Right, with Paul Ryan calling it an affront to conservatism, Marco Rubio calling it “offensive and outlandish,” and Lindsey Graham calling it “race-baiting” and “xenophobic.”

continued

Maybe because what Trump is stating is current US Law and the fact the GOP/Democrats/Media are so completely ignornat of the most basic facts on this issue demonstrates their complete unfitness for the power they hold?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any
class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the
interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such
period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or
any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the
entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate

[sinkspur]

dedication to principle

LOL!  Yeah.  Just in May, Mr. "dedication to principle" was trashing Pamela Gellar for being "insensitive" to Muslims.

[GAJohnnie]

Ah yes another lack of anything resembling rational thought response from Sink.

One has to wonder why Sink spends so much time and effort daily at being so utterly ineffectual?

[Mod1]

This thread will not plummet into personal invectives.  It will not.

[andy58-in-nh]

This thread will not plummet into personal invectives.  It will not.

That sentiment may represent the triumph of hope over experience. But hope does spring eternal.

[GAJohnnie]

This thread will not plummet into personal invectives.  It will not.

Well we can always hope.

[sinkspur]

Twelve group members said they believed Trump’s claim that thousands of Muslims had cheered in the streets following the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center. “I was there,” said one woman whose nametag identified her as Clarissa. “There were people cheering in the streets, visibly happy.” She admitted she wasn’t sure if they were Muslims.

“Yes, there were pockets of Muslims cheering,” said another woman. “A pocket here, a pocket there, a pocket there. If you add them all up, I’m sure there were a thousand.”

Even those who were undecided about the veracity of Trump’s claim supported his general sentiment. “Even If they weren’t cheering for it . . . you know, I don’t remember seeing anyone cheering against it,” said a 26-year-old young man.

The one issue for which the group, on the whole, condemned Trump was his mockery last month of a New York Times reporter with a physical disability. “There is no question he made fun of that reporter,” said one woman. Most of the group nodded in agreement. “I thought it was the worst moment of his campaign.” There were some who defended even that. “It depends on who’s hearing it,” said one woman. “It’s cringe-worthy, yes, but stuff happens.”

[Right_in_Virginia]

They were a group filled with emotion.

The basest human instinct.

Come on Sink.  You're better than this, so show some understanding and mercy.  Not everyone has the luxury of sitting all day in their mother's dimly lit basement contemplating the world slowly and methodically. 

Some people see what's happening, assess the threat and act accordingly.  You need to be gentle with them - because someday they might just save your life.

[sinkspur]

Come on Sink.  You're better than this, so show some understanding and mercy.  Not everyone has the luxury of sitting all day in their mother's dimly lit basement contemplating the world slowly and methodically. 

Some people see what's happening, assess the threat and act accordingly.  You need to be gentle with them - because someday they might just save your life.

The surest sign of maturity is rational, logical thought.

Adolescents base their actions on emotions.  Adults don't.

I shudder to think that the future of our country might be in the hands of juveniles.

[Right_in_Virginia]

I shudder to think that the future of our country might be in the hands of juveniles.

Well--go forth and contemplate--and then get back to me.

 

[aligncare]

dedication to principle

LOL!  Yeah.  Just in May, Mr. "dedication to principle" was trashing Pamela Gellar for being "insensitive" to Muslims.

I was referring to Trump's supporters....

By the way, when you see a storm coming, do you batten down the hatches? Think Paris and San Bernardino.

I (and apparently Trump) see a problem with Islam on the horizon. You, apparently, are locked into a trite political attack because you hate the messenger.

My money's on the guy with a common sense protective reaction to a changing terrorist environment. I call Trump's response to the recent threats a smart, defensive, and correct national security posture.

Kudos on Trump for eschewing the feckless, politically correct, establishment response to terrorism, and standing up for America's safety first, instead of the touchy-feely, state and UN approved, response to terrorist threats on American soil.

Go, Trump.

[andy58-in-nh]

As a student of history, when I see the words "undeterred and fiercely loyal" associated with the supporters of a political candidate, I don't think of someone like Ronald Reagan. I think of someone like Huey Long.

Leaders create inspiration. Demagogues create perspiration.

Just a thought.

[GAJohnnie]

As a student of history, when I see the words "undeterred and fiercely loyal" associated with the supporters of a political candidate, I don't think of someone like Ronald Reagan. I think of someone like Huey Long.

Leaders create inspiration. Demagogues create perspiration.

Just a thought.

Pity it is a thought based in lack of any real knowledge of Reagan and his supporters. In 1978, your sort of GOPer was calling the supporters of Reagan "wingnuts".

[sinkspur]

Even at the height of the Iranian crisis, Ronald Reagan was not insulting Muslims.

Huey Long is an apt comparison.  At the height of his popularity, he would have polled higher than FDR.

[andy58-in-nh]

Pity it is a thought based in lack of any real knowledge of Reagan and his supporters. In 1978, your sort of GOPer was calling the supporters of Reagan "wingnuts".

"Your sort of GOP-er"?

Now you listen to me, pal:

I worked for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984, and I mean WORKED. I made calls, knocked on doors, handed out campaign literature, posters and buttons, and generally engaged in arguments with loudmouthed jerks who thought they knew everything.

Which somehow, 30 years later, I still find myself doing.

[katzenjammer]

I was referring to Trump's supporters....

By the way, when you see a storm coming, do you batten down the hatches? Think Paris and San Bernardino.

I (and apparently Trump) see a problem with Islam on the horizon. You, apparently, are locked into a trite political attack because you hate the messenger.

My money's on the guy with a common sense protective reaction to a changing terrorist environment. I call Trump's response to the recent threats a smart, defensive, and correct national security posture.

Kudos on Trump for eschewing the feckless, politically correct, establishment response to terrorism, and standing up for America's safety first, instead of the touchy-feely, state and UN approved, response to terrorist threats on American soil.

Go, Trump.

AC, while I agree with the main points of your post, I think that what explains a lot of the "erraticness" or scatter-shot qualities of Trump's rhetoric on the campaign trail is due to two main factors:

1.  He is a political novice, he is finding his way along the path of being a successful politician (defined narrowly and primarily as winning the election you are running in), in the most visible and high-stake election of them all.  None of us know exactly how the inner workings of his campaign are run on a daily basis.  Most of us suspect that Trump is unlike almost all other politicians in that he is calling the shots as to what comes out of his mouth, and when.  I am sure that he has a small set of close and trusted advisers that he discusses things with daily.  However, Trump is the ultimate arbiter of what comes out of his mouth.

So, as much as he has a long list of high accomplishment in many other fields, in politics he is the consummate "newbie!"  It would be foolish for anyone to expect that he is not going to make mistakes.

2.  He has been essentially running a general election campaign from day one.  Sure, he has been forced to focus on certain topics to gain and maintain an edge in the primary contest, but he has done so in a very skillful manner.  His seeming to want to "have it both ways" on certain topics can be infuriating at times to many that are seeking a more "pure" candidate. 

(Reference the nuanced way he dealt with the whole Planned Parenthood topic: he played both side of the issue.  He was quite clear in condemning the conversations and activities depicted in the videos, and stated numerous times that he would not fund PP for abortions.  Period.  Full stop.  But, at the same time (often within the same interview) he was quite clear how much he supported funding for 'women's health issues.'  He spoke of his wife and daughters telling everyone how great he would be for women.  How women's issues would get the utmost support from his administration.  This drives some segment of the republican primary voter base nuts, they don't want to hear anything beyond: "NO funding PP for abortions!"  But, he is leaving a bread crumb trial behind him that will both protect him in the general election from "war on women" attacks, as well as attract the more moderate voters that do believe that women's health issues are important.) 

Additionally, his embrace of certain memes for the primary focus have been ham-handed at times.  (Reference his carrying his Bible around in Iowa and telling people how it is his favorite book in the world.)


So, if you take these two factors into account, you can understand a great deal about why his campaign rhetoric seems to veer about in many directions.  Take the Geller issue as an example.  Back in May I am sure that he was pretty much convinced that he would run.  I don't recall how he came to make these comments, I assume that he was asked about it in an interview (probably on Fox & Friends during his weekly appearance -- that he has had for years, BTW).  I am quite convinced that he just blurted out whatever came to mind....  'hmmm...  this person seems to be taunting a group.....  let me speak against it....'  With the over-riding thought that I will need a LOT of people from the whole cross-section of the US population to win the general election.  (BTW, I hope that it is clear to everyone that Trump did not get in the race to win the republican nomination, or finish close to the top.  The only reason that he entered at this time is to win the White House.)  So without much contemplation about what he was commenting on, and what the ramifications of those comments may be in a month... two months... next year, he just said what popped into his head.

Heck, even while he is calling for a temporary ban on all muslim entry into the US, he is also saying (again, in the same interview often!), how much he loves muslims and has so many muslim friends!

There are lot more examples of how these two factors explain the apparently unexplainable things that have come from his campaign.

However, he also knew either before he started his campaign, or soon thereafter, that none of it would matter a hoot to a large segment of the population!  Trump knows well that his support is largely driven not from within and the present, but rather by external realities and the recent past.  (We could expand upon this for days, but I heard it very succinctly put by a caller to Hannity's radio show yesterday from a Trump supporter that self identified as a yuge Reagan man: "2010, 2012, 2014....  the gopE over promised and under delivered every time!"  In a nutshell, that explains why that voter is "Trump, or no one" at this point in time.)

We are all witnessing a presidential campaign like no others in our lifetimes.  It may seem bizarre and insane at times, but I believe that it is tracking toward a very specific conclusion (being purposefully vague here!).

[truth_seeker]

"Your sort of GOP-er"?

Now you listen to me, pal:

I worked for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984, and I mean WORKED. I made calls, knocked on doors, handed out campaign literature, posters and buttons, and generally engaged in arguments with loudmouthed jerks who thought they knew everything.

Which somehow, 30 years later, I still find myself doing.

So very true. I will go out on a limb, and speculate that your type back then had enough common sense to not ridicule or be derogatory with the very same people that you wanted votes from.

The reason I use the term "contemporary conservatives" is to encourage such reflection, but alas I think it flies by unnoticed.

Persuasion by reason, intelligent maturity, attraction, conversion, all alien and unknown.

[Lando Lincoln]

kat... Thank you for the thoughtful and reasoned post.

[katzenjammer]

kat... Thank you for the thoughtful and reasoned post.

 

[GAJohnnie]

So very true. I will go out on a limb, and speculate that your type back then had enough common sense to not ridicule or be derogatory with the very same people that you wanted votes from.

The reason I use the term "contemporary conservatives" is to encourage such reflection, but alas I think it flies by unnoticed.

Persuasion by reason, intelligent maturity, attraction, conversion, all alien and unknown.

Good point.

[GAJohnnie]

As a student of history, when I see the words "undeterred and fiercely loyal" associated with the supporters of a political candidate, I don't think of someone like Ronald Reagan. I think of someone like Huey Long.

"Your sort of GOP-er"?

Now you listen to me, pal:

I worked for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984, and I mean WORKED. I made calls, knocked on doors, handed out campaign literature, posters and buttons, and generally engaged in arguments with loudmouthed jerks who thought they knew everything.

Which somehow, 30 years later, I still find myself doing.

Sure you did. Which is why you seem to share the standard GOPe notion, as opposed to Reagan's vision, that the best was to inspire people to support your views  is to insult them.

[Mod1]

On this thread, is not post #15 the first personal shot?