ADVERTISEMENT

Republicans think Donald Trump is trustworthy, empathetic, and well suited to presidency

cigaretteman

HB King
May 29, 2001
79,642
63,044
113
The new Washington Post/ABC News poll finds Donald Trump way ahead of his rivals with 33 percent support among Republicans and GOP-leaning independents. But perhaps the most remarkable finding in the poll is how highly Republicans and GOP-leaners rate Trump on a range of personal attributes:

1) Republicans say by 64-35 that Trump is “qualified to serve as president.” By contrast, Americans overall say by 60-37 that he is not qualified.

2) Republicans say by 60-35 that Trump is “honest and trustworthy.” By contrast, Americans overall say he is not honest and trustworthy by 59-35.

3) Republicans say by 53-45 that Trump understands the problems of people like them. By contrast, Americans overall say he does not by 67-29.

4) Republicans say by 54-42 that Trump “has the kind of personality and temperament it takes to serve effectively as president.” By contrast, Americans overall say he doesn’t have those things by 63-33.

That’s remarkable. And by the way, a recent Quinnipiac survey also found majorities of Iowa Republicans give Trump similarly positive personal ratings.

Now, you could argue that today’s Post poll also shows similar findings about Hillary Clinton: She has very high personal ratings among Democrats, but not among Americans overall. (One notable exception: 56 percent of Americans say she has the right personality and temperament for the presidency.)

But the cases of Trump and Clinton are very different, and in a way, this makes our new polling all the more remarkable. Clinton has been well known to Democratic voters across the country as a public official for over two decades, as a First Lady, Senator, presidential candidate (the first time), Secretary of State, and, now, as a presidential candidate for the second time. Clinton’s national favorable numbers have fluctuated up and down over the years, and are currently on a downswing as she re-enters the political arena; meanwhile, it’s not surprising that her personal numbers among Democrats remain high, since she has that long history as a public official and is widely seen as the likely Dem nominee.

But Trump is largely known to Republicans not as a longtime high profile public official who has long been thought about for the presidency, but as a “brash” (as everyone’s favorite euphemism has it) billionaire who suddenly burst on to the political scene, names big buildings after himself, fires people on television, and regularly insults groups that include millions of Americans. Yet majorities of Republicans think he’s honest and trustworthy, understands their needs and problems, and is temperamentally suited to the presidency.

This may mainly reflect the fact that Trump gets a lot of media attention, so he’s getting far more exposure among Republican voters than his rivals are. That media attention regularly broadcasts images of Trump spewing vaguely Republican-sounding talking points (most of the time, anyway) about things like immigration and China (in addition to all of the insults), which could be helping to create generally positive attitudes towards him. Or perhaps Republican voters just like the show Trump is putting on as he publicly torments the GOP establishment and “tells it like it is” (a quality Republican voters keep telling reporters they admire in him).

Or here’s one other, rather more ominous possibility: maybe Republican voters are beginning to regard Trump as a possible nominee.

Okay, that can’t be right.

Or can it?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...thy-empathetic-and-well-suited-to-presidency/
 
I think people are gravitating towards him because he isn't the typical copy and paste candidate usually thrown out there.
I see what you did there
anigif_enhanced-buzz-25961-1385055442-5.gif
 
I think people are gravitating towards him because he isn't the typical copy and paste candidate usually thrown out there.
That's exactly why, and his style of campaigning comes across as much more genuine. I mean, you don't see too many candidates admitting that they used their money donations to gain favor with politicians.

I'm not sure exactly what to make of Trump.
 
Nobody ever said voters were smart, on either side of the aisle.

Or have great memories. In 2011 this was when Michelle Bachmann (would) led and started to fade. The next 3 months saw Perry, then Cain and then Newt on top. This chart is really crazy at the end of 2011.

rcp-gop-9-1-2011.png
 
Pretty much the same amount of Democrats who think Hillary is trustworthy, empathetic, and well suited to the presidency
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkeye54545
Pretty much the same amount of Democrats who think Hillary is trustworthy, empathetic, and well suited to the presidency

Imagine if you asked Americans as a whole if Obama is trustworthy or qualified to be president? I suspect you'd get similar numbers as Trump within is own party and then overall.

I'm pretty sure Trump isn't the best choice to be President. I do like that he's shaking things up and hopefully teaching some lessons on what the American people really do want.
 
The new Washington Post/ABC News poll finds Donald Trump way ahead of his rivals with 33 percent support among Republicans and GOP-leaning independents. But perhaps the most remarkable finding in the poll is how highly Republicans and GOP-leaners rate Trump on a range of personal attributes:

1) Republicans say by 64-35 that Trump is “qualified to serve as president.” By contrast, Americans overall say by 60-37 that he is not qualified.

2) Republicans say by 60-35 that Trump is “honest and trustworthy.” By contrast, Americans overall say he is not honest and trustworthy by 59-35.

3) Republicans say by 53-45 that Trump understands the problems of people like them. By contrast, Americans overall say he does not by 67-29.

4) Republicans say by 54-42 that Trump “has the kind of personality and temperament it takes to serve effectively as president.” By contrast, Americans overall say he doesn’t have those things by 63-33.

That’s remarkable. And by the way, a recent Quinnipiac survey also found majorities of Iowa Republicans give Trump similarly positive personal ratings.

Now, you could argue that today’s Post poll also shows similar findings about Hillary Clinton: She has very high personal ratings among Democrats, but not among Americans overall. (One notable exception: 56 percent of Americans say she has the right personality and temperament for the presidency.)

But the cases of Trump and Clinton are very different, and in a way, this makes our new polling all the more remarkable. Clinton has been well known to Democratic voters across the country as a public official for over two decades, as a First Lady, Senator, presidential candidate (the first time), Secretary of State, and, now, as a presidential candidate for the second time. Clinton’s national favorable numbers have fluctuated up and down over the years, and are currently on a downswing as she re-enters the political arena; meanwhile, it’s not surprising that her personal numbers among Democrats remain high, since she has that long history as a public official and is widely seen as the likely Dem nominee.

But Trump is largely known to Republicans not as a longtime high profile public official who has long been thought about for the presidency, but as a “brash” (as everyone’s favorite euphemism has it) billionaire who suddenly burst on to the political scene, names big buildings after himself, fires people on television, and regularly insults groups that include millions of Americans. Yet majorities of Republicans think he’s honest and trustworthy, understands their needs and problems, and is temperamentally suited to the presidency.

This may mainly reflect the fact that Trump gets a lot of media attention, so he’s getting far more exposure among Republican voters than his rivals are. That media attention regularly broadcasts images of Trump spewing vaguely Republican-sounding talking points (most of the time, anyway) about things like immigration and China (in addition to all of the insults), which could be helping to create generally positive attitudes towards him. Or perhaps Republican voters just like the show Trump is putting on as he publicly torments the GOP establishment and “tells it like it is” (a quality Republican voters keep telling reporters they admire in him).

Or here’s one other, rather more ominous possibility: maybe Republican voters are beginning to regard Trump as a possible nominee.

Okay, that can’t be right.

Or can it?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...thy-empathetic-and-well-suited-to-presidency/
Many pundits are saying he has a high floor and low ceiling. Not sure thats true but he does have a plurality not a majority. On all the polling I have seen he is not the second choice of many people, which means as others drop out the others will rise relative to his numbers. In that scenario watch out for Carson
 
Imagine if you asked Americans as a whole if Obama is trustworthy or qualified to be president? I suspect you'd get similar numbers as Trump within is own party and then overall.

I'm pretty sure Trump isn't the best choice to be President. I do like that he's shaking things up and hopefully teaching some lessons on what the American people really do want.
He is fun. I enjoy his trade policy realness.
 
Nobody ever said voters were smart, on either side of the aisle.
Plenty of studies showing Republicans to be especially stupid.

I wonder how many Rs still think Saddam had WMD or was involved in 9/11? I recall a poll a few years back that said 65% still believe he had WMD.

There was a fascinating study shortly after the 2004 election where people were asked to identify the major candidates' positions on a number of issues and say whether they agreed. A strong majority of Rs said they agreed with Bush on the environment - after incorrectly identifying Kerry's policy positions as being Bush's positions.
 
I know for a fact saddam had wmd's because the USA shipped them over there and they were stamped, "made in the usa" on them and they showed up Syria! I wonder how many dems think OBL did 9-11?
 
Plenty of studies showing Republicans to be especially stupid.

I wonder how many Rs still think Saddam had WMD or was involved in 9/11? I recall a poll a few years back that said 65% still believe he had WMD.

There was a fascinating study shortly after the 2004 election where people were asked to identify the major candidates' positions on a number of issues and say whether they agreed. A strong majority of Rs said they agreed with Bush on the environment - after incorrectly identifying Kerry's policy positions as being Bush's positions.
You know this is a good point. I often assume that people vote the way they do because they agree with the policy positions represented by the respective teams. It's sort of nice that we find Rs often at odds with the policies trumpeted by their leaders. You can fix ignorant.
 
I like a man who knows how to use bankruptcy as an effective strategy. We might need that skill in the future with Republicans running things.
That's another point I hadn't considered, but I was referencing his protectionist fair trade positions in contrast to the free trade positions Rs usually hold.
 
You know this is a good point. I often assume that people vote the way they do because they agree with the policy positions represented by the respective teams. It's sort of nice that we find Rs often at odds with the policies trumpeted by their leaders. You can fix ignorant.
this is why we call our leaders, "leftists" and "rinos" and "dems"
this is also why trump is so popular
 
this is why we call our leaders, "leftists" and "rinos" and "dems"
this is also why trump is so popular
He just gave a big speech in Texas trumpeting his leftist trade policy. He may be to the left of Sanders on redistribution. He may be the only guy that can save the middle class and he wants to do it by empowering labor. I love it and if you do too, you are a liberal.
 
He just gave a big speech in Texas trumpeting his leftist trade policy. He may be to the left of Sanders on redistribution. He may be the only guy that can save the middle class and he wants to do it by empowering labor. I love it and if you do too, you are a liberal.
trump did?
 
He just gave a big speech in Texas trumpeting his leftist trade policy. He may be to the left of Sanders on redistribution. He may be the only guy that can save the middle class and he wants to do it by empowering labor. I love it and if you do too, you are a liberal.
Do you have a link to that? I just did a quick google and didn't see anything. I did see some articles from National Review and George Will - conservative establishment - attacking him on trade. But don't know if they reflect his recent stances.
 
Do you have a link to that? I just did a quick google and didn't see anything. I did see some articles from National Review and George Will - conservative establishment - attacking him on trade. But don't know if they reflect his recent stances.
me too. I searched it. I saw where he wants to build a wall and replace obamacare with donaldcare. ha ha
 
Do you have a link to that? I just did a quick google and didn't see anything. I did see some articles from National Review and George Will - conservative establishment - attacking him on trade. But don't know if they reflect his recent stances.
Here is a link to the speech, its an hour long however.


He starts in on trade in a rambling way about half way through around the 31 minute mark. He rambles in and out of the topic until the 45 minute mark where he goes into more detail on his protectionist ideas.
 
Last edited:
tariffs and taxes on foreign entities is not a lib dem idea, I think he's basically saying the American companies are no longer American when they leave
 
tariffs and taxes on foreign entities is not a lib dem idea, I think he's basically saying the American companies are no longer American when they leave
Of course it is, but if the label is tripping you up call it what you like. If you are pro valuing our market to the benefit of the labor class you are an ally. If you favor policy that advantages the worker over the investor, you are a friend.
 
You know this is a good point. I often assume that people vote the way they do because they agree with the policy positions represented by the respective teams. It's sort of nice that we find Rs often at odds with the policies trumpeted by their leaders. You can fix ignorant.
All the studies that show that are slanted studies meant to prove an imaginary point
 
Of course it is, but if the label is tripping you up call it what you like. If you are pro valuing our market to the benefit of the labor class you are an ally. If you favor policy that advantages the worker over the investor, you are a friend.


Be careful with how far you take that, though, and I suspect you do realize the limits. Of course, those limits are going to be a little bit different for each of us and it will also depend on whether you are more of a worker or an investor.

I prefer balanced approaches where all stakeholders get what they require. This is essentially a free market, and I should point out a truly free market means there are no political favors being handed out. Anyway, in a truly free market, the investor would accrue the higher returns given his position of taking the most risk, but labor would get a fair return as well. Customers would get a fair product, the state would get a fair tax payment, etc. Sure, anybody can call that "utopia", but I can say the same about socialism. In the end, our system is designed such that we all get about what we deserve.
 
Be careful with how far you take that, though, and I suspect you do realize the limits. Of course, those limits are going to be a little bit different for each of us and it will also depend on whether you are more of a worker or an investor.

I prefer balanced approaches where all stakeholders get what they require. This is essentially a free market, and I should point out a truly free market means there are no political favors being handed out. Anyway, in a truly free market, the investor would accrue the higher returns given his position of taking the most risk, but labor would get a fair return as well. Customers would get a fair product, the state would get a fair tax payment, etc. Sure, anybody can call that "utopia", but I can say the same about socialism. In the end, our system is designed such that we all get about what we deserve.
As Apollo taught us, everything in moderation. But that's about the only idea here I agree with. The free market is exactly what allows for excess to accumulate at the top. It's what Trump is arguing against. Its what the Founding Fathers argued against. I want a regulated market that advantages us, that forces the investor class to invest in the American labor market. It's the wage earner who truly risks and is at risk, not the capitalist who only ever risks paper. Forcing capitalists to tie their fate to the American middle class is the best redistribution policy we could have and Trump is saying just that. Please elect this guy. I'm going to have to switch parties so I can causus for him.
 
Here is a link to the speech, its an hour long however.


He starts in on trade in a rambling way about half way through around the 31 minute mark. He rambles in and out of the topic until the 45 minute mark where he goes into more detail on his protectionist ideas.
Other than charging Ford 35% to bring cars made in Mexico into the US, I really didn't hear much. And I didn't really take that very seriously.

I could see how fans would like the speech. It was often fun. And seemed to promise good things. Yet when you listen closely, he wasn't really promising much with any specifics or much substance. It was more "you're going to love what I'll do" than "here's what I'll do."

The implications of some of his comments are intriguing. For example, when he said our trade deficit with China was $343 billion, and then said if you have a business that's losing money like that you shut it down . . . how does that translate into trade policy with China? He doesn't say.

I agree it does sound like he's thinking tariffs. But he doesn't actually go there - or explain how they would work without causing trade wars. And, like most Rs, a few breaths later he's saying he'll do away with regulations.

And besides, under the TPP such tariffs will be illegal. I assume Trump is for the TPP. Pretty much all Republicans are.
 
You know this is a good point. I often assume that people vote the way they do because they agree with the policy positions represented by the respective teams. It's sort of nice that we find Rs often at odds with the policies trumpeted by their leaders. You can fix ignorant.
Many Ds that i know are at odds with the current administrations policies as well. Funny how that works.
 
Many Ds that i know are at odds with the current administrations policies as well. Funny how that works.
That would be a really great point if the objections within the D party were that BHO was acting too liberal. But I don't get that sense. I sense the Ds who object to BHO are mad that he isn't more liberal. That stands in contrast to Rs who articule liberal desires by another name.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Trump is not for the TPP. Interested now?

"The Trans-Pacific Partnership is an attack on America's business. It does not stop Japan's currency manipulation. This is a bad deal," he said.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/23/news/economy/trump-trade-deal/

Thanks. Joe's Place also linked Trump being anti-TPP.

I'm not convinced we have really seen his stance on TPP. He seems more negative toward it than his GOP brethren. That's good. But is it really true?

Unfortunately, while the currency thing is a good issue, it's not a good complaint against the TPP. He's basically criticizing it for something that isn't in there. It's sort of like criticizing the Iran deal because it didn't get Iran to release prisoners - a criticism Trump and many in the GOP make. Sure, it would be nice if Iran released prisoners. But that wasn't the point of the Iran deal.

It's also unclear what Trump means by that. Is he calling for a Tobin tax? Probably not. So what does he want? He probably wants China and a few others to stop manipulating their currency to our disadvantage. Sounds good. How do you do that?
 
That would be a really great point if the objections within the D party were that BHO was acting too liberal. But I don't get that sense. I sense the Ds who object to BHO are mad that he isn't more liberal. That stands in contrast to Rs who articule liberal desires by another name.
I'm not really a D, but I preferred Obama over his GOP competition. The highlighted part is definitely my position. Like Bill Clinton, Obama has been a huge disappointment. Better on some things than the GOP alternatives, but not nearly enough better to be happy about.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT