Howard Stern unmasks Trump.

[CapnAwesome]

It's weird how people seem to think Stern and Trump are friends. Stern endorsed Hillary Clinton. Other then being on his show a few times, I doubt they socialize. Supposedly Howard is a shut in outside of doing stuff for his show.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Hillary Clinton is NOT my President. There might be a god after all.

[Jehanne]

Wow, that's a lot of stereotyping for one post, Jehanne.

It's all supported by the polling data.  What, in particular, do you disagree with?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Wow, that's a lot of stereotyping for one post, Jehanne.

It's all supported by the polling data.  What, in particular, do you disagree with?

I'd like to see your polls for "white trash", the average reading level of Trump's voter base, and the the Greens being "scientific". That'll do for now.

[Aroura]

Trump relates to white trash and to the rust belt, the home of coal mining and high-end manufacturing, most of whom read and write around the 6th grade.  Given the fact that The Donald writes at the 4th-grade level, his appeal is even stronger!  ("Finally, a President who is dumber than me!")  Blacks stayed home because it was difficult for them to vote and all the polls showed an easy Clinton victory, and so, they didn't bother.  Married white trash women were envious of Clinton, and so, even with P-gate, they had no problems voting for her, and besides, they wanted to please their white trash husbands.  But, they were ashamed to admit to the pollsters that they were going to do so, skewing the polls.  The Greens, being scientific, also wanted to send Clinton a message that the Left Wing was very much alive and well, even while assuming that Clinton would coast to an easy victory.  Finally, Clinton herself was arrogant to the point of assuming that she would win and tried to "grease" the outcome by targeting states that the polls showed as being "competitive".  As such, she never even set foot in Wisconsin, and in ignoring that and Michigan, she sowed the seeds of her own defeat.  She should have know better; certainly, Bill should have, also, but they wanted more than a victory, but a mandate.  In the end, they ended-up with neither.

Sounds mostly great, and I've seen the data that less education did equate to more likely to vote for Trump, but the rest feels like (angry) conjecture and as Thump syas, stereotyping.  After all, she spent a LOT of time in Pennsylvania, even though she had good polls there already, she lost it by more than she did Wisconsin.  
I get your angry stereotyping part, it's hard not to be right now.      I'm struggling with it too.  But we should try to steer away from painting whole groups with such a giant broad brush.

However, I doubt her going to Wiscosin would have made a twit worth of difference.  Those tours affect most voters not at all.  People loved Obama, and his going to states on her behalf didn't win then either.

The rust belt was mad.  They seem to think Black Lives Matters somehow means other lives don't.  That they are the "Real Americans" ™ that have been forgotten.  I saw polls that showed in places that had very high unemployment in 2008, up in the 22% range, that now have very low, like 4%, steel and auto towns, do not credit Obama one iota. They all pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps, to hear them tell, and the auto industry bailout hurt more than it helped.

I live in a town with people who think this way.  Their lives have only gotten better in the last 8 years, but gay marriage and legal weed in particular makes them feel like they are being attacked by crazy libtards.  They really, really think Obama made this country worse, though if you ask how, they stumble around with no answer, because they can't say the one that really bothers them unless they know they are around other ignorant bigots like them.  Oh, the gaaaaays!!

I do agree that the green voters wanted to send a message, many many of my friends are in this category. I was about to disown them all I was so pissed. But most of them really regret it now that Trumplethinskin is actually in office.  A few stick to their guns that Hillary would be equally as bad, but these people, like the auto people, will not be swayed by a few visits or a more charismatic candidate.  I honestly don't know what to do next time, I'm not sure what will motivate the young, black, and greens, but those voters need to get the fuck out and vote next time!

[Jehanne]

It's all supported by the polling data.  What, in particular, do you disagree with?

I'd like to see your polls for "white trash", the average reading level of Trump's voter base, and the the Greens being "scientific". That'll do for now.

White trash voters:

http://nypost.com/2016/07/30/why-white-t...ald-trump/

Trump's reading level:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn...a8f46884b5

Green's scientific bent:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_party#Alliances

[Autumnlicious]

If the Greens intended to send a message, then the message is "A good Green is a dead Green"

Fuck them right and proper for collaborating to bring us Trump.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'd like to see your polls for "white trash", the average reading level of Trump's voter base, and the the Greens being "scientific". That'll do for now.

White trash voters:

http://nypost.com/2016/07/30/why-white-t...ald-trump/

Wait, you said you could support it with polling data, and now you're presenting anecdotal support -- culled from the New York Post, no less.

So you've got one family's take on it, coupled with an expansive application of anecdote-as-evidence.

Trump's reading level:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn...a8f46884b5

That is discussing the grammatical sense of his speeches, not his reading level. You realize that extemporaneous speeches are often very disjointed, and that such may not be reflective of reading ability, which is what your claim was?

Green's scientific bent:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_party#Alliances

No poll, there, no hard numbers at all. One sentence addressing how they are "often" formed with "scientific ecologists, community environmentalists, and local (or national) leftist groups or groups concerned with peace or citizens rights" does not in any way support your claim that Green Party activists are more scientific.

[Jehanne]

White trash voters:

http://nypost.com/2016/07/30/why-white-t...ald-trump/

Wait, you said you could support it with polling data, and now you're presenting anecdotal support -- culled from the New York Post, no less.

So you've got one family's take on it, coupled with an expansive application of anecdote-as-evidence.

Trump's reading level:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn...a8f46884b5

That is discussing the grammatical sense of his speeches, not his reading level. You realize that extemporaneous speeches are often very disjointed, and that such may not be reflective of reading ability, which is what your claim was?

Green's scientific bent:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_party#Alliances

No poll, there, no hard numbers at all. One sentence addressing how they are "often" formed with "scientific ecologists, community environmentalists, and local (or national) leftist groups or groups concerned with peace or citizens rights" does not in any way support your claim that Green Party activists are more scientific.

None of the "evidences" I offered are, I admit, hard evidences.  You can and should feel free to reject everything that I said, and I would never attach any level of scientific certainty to any of my claims.  I should qualify my statements as being probable (i.e., "greater than a 51% likelihood"), and I admit that they are all certainly subjective statements, opinions, really.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yeah, I get that. It seems to me that you claimed more support than you actually had at hand.

Mind you, I don't necessarily disagree with your points, but I think when they're worded in such a broad manner, the support for them should be a little more solid than appears to be the case.