Kansas Crimson

Is President Trump seeing an erosion of support among seniors, a constituency that’s absolutely critical to his reelection hopes?

Josh Kraushaar of National Journal takes a look at recent polls and concludes the answer may be yes. Notably, Kraushaar finds, enormous percentages of them disagree with Trump’s priorities in combating the novel coronavirus and have turned on his management of the crisis:

The latest Morning Consult poll found that 65-and-older voters prioritized defeating the coronavirus over healing the economy by nearly a 6-to-1 ratio. And over the past month, they’ve become the group most disenchanted with Trump’s handling of the crisis. In mid-March, seniors were more supportive of Trump than any other age group (plus-19 net approval). Now, their net approval of the president has dropped 20 points and is lower than any age group outside of the youngest Americans.

And perhaps as a result, Trump is losing support among seniors in head-to-head matchups with Joe Biden:

Those findings were matched by a new NBC/WSJ poll, which tested the presidential matchup between Trump and Joe Biden. Among seniors 65 and older, Biden led Trump by 9 points, 52 to 43 percent. That’s a dramatic 16-point swing from Hillary Clinton’s showing in the 2016 election; she lost seniors by 7 points to Trump (52-45 percent).

As Kraushaar notes, seniors have a great deal riding on the handling of the coronavirus, because of their advanced years:

They’re counting on the president to protect them at a particularly precarious moment. If Trump’s desire to quickly reopen the economy ends up backfiring, they’ll be the first to abandon him and deal his reelection prospects a crippling blow.

It doesn’t seem likely that Biden will ultimately beat Trump among seniors. But this does highlight something else: Trump’s effort to turn the coronavirus into a full blown culture war that divides the country to his benefit appears to suffer from a very serious deficiency that has eluded notice thus far.

[...]

Feral wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 5:52 pm

That's a feature, not a bug.

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

F*ckin St. Ronald.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 3:49 pm When the fuck were we ever in the era of "high-information" voters?

The "low-information voter" trope is trotted out every time someone from the other team wins, because it helps soothe the losers' egos.

Well...uhh...we lost, but only because they're dumb!

ALL eras are eras of low-information voters because MOST people have better things to do than sit around and fixate on politics.

Additionally, basing a campaign on overtly telling your opponents' voters that they're dumb has never worked. 2010, 2014, and 2016 -- that is to say three of the last five election cycles -- are examples of how well that's worked recently.

Frankly, the only reason Trump is still viable politically is because most people in the country find it fucking annoying when assholes with $24,000 fridges stocked with $13/pint ice cream tell them that they're stupid.

Looks like somebody got the memo:

I DID see the ad, if that's what you're asking. It's pretty brutal.

Not sure why you took it as a question.

Zoinks! Got me!

How can I possibly stand up in the face of David Atkins withering critique?

O'course, you know it's not actually about "persuadable voters," right?

Feral wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 10:09 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 3:49 pm When the fuck were we ever in the era of "high-information" voters?

The "low-information voter" trope is trotted out every time someone from the other team wins, because it helps soothe the losers' egos.

Well...uhh...we lost, but only because they're dumb!

ALL eras are eras of low-information voters because MOST people have better things to do than sit around and fixate on politics.

Additionally, basing a campaign on overtly telling your opponents' voters that they're dumb has never worked. 2010, 2014, and 2016 -- that is to say three of the last five election cycles -- are examples of how well that's worked recently.

Frankly, the only reason Trump is still viable politically is because most people in the country find it fucking annoying when assholes with $24,000 fridges stocked with $13/pint ice cream tell them that they're stupid.

Looks like somebody got the memo:

I am in a bit of a better place knowing that little Baron Von Dipshit had plenty of toy limos to play with.

Also, most likely not the first time there was room for 2-3 others in that hookers dress.

I just feel bad the kid has to run around and play in a goddamn dumb suit and tie. What kid wants to weae a fucking suit and tie? Ive worn them when ive had to, i wore them for the wonderfully awful 6 months i spent at enterpise rentacar trying to pay next semester tuition, i will never wear a suit and tie again if i can help it.

Feral wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 10:09 pm

This has to be photoshopped. No one can survive in so much ugly.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 11:02 pm Zoinks! Got me!

How can I possibly stand up in the face of David Atkins withering critique?

O'course, you know it's not actually about "persuadable voters," right?

You're right!
It's a lot more about you and others having something to rightfully criticize Nancy Pelosi about
- and your possibly thinking/believing that "normal" Americans actually give a shit about "assholes with $24,000 fridges stocked with $13/pint ice cream tell them that they're stupid".
Sure, you and maybe the 1% who are paying attention do.
I mean.... You yourself said, "When the fuck were we ever in the era of "high-information" voters"?

are you accusing DC of being part of trump’s base?

Grandma wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 7:39 am

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 11:02 pm Zoinks! Got me!

How can I possibly stand up in the face of David Atkins withering critique?

O'course, you know it's not actually about "persuadable voters," right?

You're right!
It's a lot more about you and others having something to rightfully criticize Nancy Pelosi about
- and your possibly thinking/believing that "normal" Americans actually give a shit about "assholes with $24,000 fridges stocked with $13/pint ice cream tell them that they're stupid".
Sure, you and maybe the 1% who are paying attention do.
I mean.... You yourself said, "When the fuck were we ever in the era of "high-information" voters"?

I'm not really sure what any of that means.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 10:12 am

Grandma wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 7:39 am

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 11:02 pm Zoinks! Got me!

How can I possibly stand up in the face of David Atkins withering critique?

O'course, you know it's not actually about "persuadable voters," right?

You're right!
It's a lot more about you and others having something to rightfully criticize Nancy Pelosi about
- and your possibly thinking/believing that "normal" Americans actually give a shit about "assholes with $24,000 fridges stocked with $13/pint ice cream tell them that they're stupid".
Sure, you and maybe the 1% who are paying attention do.
I mean.... You yourself said, "When the fuck were we ever in the era of "high-information" voters"?

I'm not really sure what any of that means.

Interesting response.
It seems the past couple of days you have been assuming a lot of posts mean things that they don't so I appreciate your saying you're not sure what any of it means.
If you care, to try and clarify my last post, it means I agree with you that it's not about "persuadable voters".
It also means that right or wrong, I disagree with you if you believe that more than a very small amount of "common folk" people are aware of wealthy POLITICAL folks flaunting their wealth while telling them that they are stupid. Like I said, right or wrong, that's how I feel. Of course you can reference Hillary using the "basket of deplorables" comment hurting her and helping Trump but I'm willing to bet my $10 to your $1 that if I asked 100 random people who voted for Trump - Who said, "basket of deplorables"? 95 (or more) of them would have no idea. Just as I believe if I asked 100 random people who voted for Trump - Where Nancy Pelosi was standing in her home, what was behind her, and what was she eating? I figure 95 (or more) would have no clue.

tl;dfc

Neat that you'd defend Doyel, though.

Looks like DC's Easter Week of playing nice is over. Oh, well, it was such a peaceful, confrontation-free week, too.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 22, 2020 11:17 am tl;dfc

Neat that you'd defend Doyel, though.

When you tell me you don't fucking care about a direct response I gave you - because you felt the need to tell me you didn't understand something I had posted - and I wanted to clarify it for you - I consider you to be nothing more than a dismissive _____________.
I thought you were a better person than that.
Now you feel the need to give me a hard time because I called you out on something I felt was foolish for you to have been doing the past few days? Sorry, if I upset you by doing that.
Thank you for giving me a "life lesson" in another post today. I'll ASSUME it was meant to be kind and caring, or should I ASSUME it was meant to be nasty and condescending? Gee, I guess I should be just like you and ASSUME whatever I want it to have meant - and not bother to ask you what you really meant by it.