Basis for Trump Support

"lack of financial irresponsiblity" ???? rotflmao!

 

The stock market doubled in his 8 yrs. If your wife's 401k was losing money, that's on you and her. Or your financial adviser. So someone other than obama should be sent to gitmo.

 

http://www.macrotrends.net/1358/dow-jones-industrial-average-last-10-years
Then it is on you and your many people you know. Sounds like a group of people you should not be investing with or taking advice.

 

Here here.
Anyone losing money the last 8 yrs does not belong investing.

 

Here's the Dow.

https://www.google.com/search?q=dow...69i60l3j0l2.4501j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

Proving what? If anything is clear our whole system of finance and government is rampant with liars and cheats.

 

Proving that the stock market has been steadily going up for 5 years. If your 401 wasn't doing well it was mismanaged

 

Not just the gov't and system of finance, the whole blimey world is there matey.
Still no reason why anyone would lose money in a bull market. Unless they were complete fools with their money.
Probably bought Gold or something, maybe even oil commodities.

 

Support based on Lies

 

That is quite an excuse for almost unbelievable investing Incompetence. An intelligent investor would admit mistakes and learn from them rather than making excuses for legendary incompetence.

 

There are many reasons why an individual choose to view and support a candidate. I would say that 80% of the electorate knew whom they would be voting for as soon as it became apparent that Trump and Clinton would be the nominees. That 80% is locked in stone, no changing their minds, their votes. It then becomes a battle for the remaining 20%. Call them independents, the non-affiliated, the undecided voter. These folks don't get the attention they deserve as most campaigns the candidates are too busy playing to their base, getting their base fired up, getting their base to turn out. They get ignored. Yet they are the ones, nationally anyway, that usually decides elections. Clinton totally ignored these voters. Trump ignored them also until the last two weeks of the campaign when he concentrated on them in, you guessed it, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

It was in those three states that Trump really out worked, out campaigned and went for those usually ignored voters. Trump made five visits/stops in Wisconsin to Hillary's none, zero. He made six to Michigan to Hillary's one. Pennsylvania was closer, but it was still 8 to 5 Trump. If a candidate looks like he is paying attention to those who are usually ignored, there is a good chance that candidate will get the ignored votes. Whereas Hillary went around promising to be a third Obama term, it was Trump during the last two weeks that addressed the worries and fears of the working class in those deciding three states. How much of an impact did that have? Hard to tell since no exit polls are taken just among these 20% that are usually ignored voters. But in union households, usually a key to Democratic success, the working class. Union households went to Obama by 18 points in 2012. Hillary won them by nine. She lost half of the union household support margin. Enough to give Trump a win in the deciding three states.

There's much more, especially the dislike factor of both candidates among this deciding usually ignored group. But his will do for a start.

 

While all of that is true I believe that since usually about half of those who could vote actually do so the real determining factor is the motivation of the base. No question that Hillary was an uninspired candidate while Trump had a genuine appeal to the Republican base. I think the article did a good job of explaining why Trump was so appealing to the Republican base both in the primaries and in the presidential election.

 

Getting your base out is very important, but that doesn't by itself get you there by itself. At least nationally. It will in probably most states senate and governors races and Congressional districts.

According to CNN exist polls, 36% of those who voted last year were Democrats, 33% Republicans, 31% independents or supposedly not affiliated with either major party. Not party of either party's base. That can be deceiving as a certain percentage of independents lean Republican or Democrat and aren't pure independents with no leans. Trump won independents 46-42 with 12% voting third party.

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls

Gallup can be used to break down the leans from the true or pure independents with no leans. According to Gallup as of 6 Nov 2016 they broke down the 31% 10-10-11. Lean Democrat, lean Republican, independents with no leans. Makes sense. Add those 10 to each parties base you have 46-43 excluding the pure no lean independents now that make up 11% of the electorate. The final count, 48-46-6 Clinton/Trump/Third Party would show the 11% of no leans independent broke down to 2 for Clinton, 3 for Trump and 6 for third parties. Winning the ignored propelled Trump to the Oval office, not the base vote.

Dang, I get involved in numbers way too much.