“On-the-fence voters” are OK with Trump’s contempt
According to yesterday’s navel-gazing piece in the Boston Globe*, “on-the-fence” voters are edging to supporting Trump because they feel looked down upon by Democrats. WTF? Do they seriously believe that Trump *doesn’t* look down on his supporters? It is blindingly obvious that the only person on the planet that Trump cares about is Donald Trump. The toolkit of Trump and the Trump GOP consists entirely of cultivating resentment: resentment of American laws, American law enforcement, the American judicial system and anything that will distract his base from the fact that he’s a billionaire under criminal indictments exploiting the very system he’s telling his base is exploiting them.
In the polls I’m reading, the American people place the economy at the top of their list of concerns this year. While the current economy hasn’t lifted every single boat, it has improved the present and near future for the middle class and working class.
*no link, since the article is pay-walled
In the polls I’m reading, the American people place the economy at the top of their list of concerns this year. While the current economy hasn’t lifted every single boat, it has improved the present and near future for the middle class and working class.
*no link, since the article is pay-walled
There’s one article from the Globe yesterday that includes the phrase “on-the-fence” and it’s this one.
The country’s most influential banker says Democrats should respect Trump voters. Is he right?
Boston Globe – Jan 19
@Fred,
Yes. I just choose not to violate the Globe copyright by reposting its content without permission.
It took some digging to even find the article you mentioned.
I wouldn’t have posted as much as I did, but I had to get to the ‘on-the-fence’ quote.
@Fred,
You could have just copied and pasted the sentence with”on-the-fence” in it. Just because you read the rest doesn’t mean you had to post the rest.
I’m sorry, but the salient ‘On-the-fence’ quote has little to do with what Jamie Dimon had to say. Which I had been previously been inclined to ignore.
@Fred,
Then summarize the rest *in your own words* instead of violating the copyright.
Something like this, maybe
“This week, Jamie Dimon — CEO of JP Morgan Chase, the largest bank in the US — drew a lot of attention for encouraging Democrats to “be a little more respectful” of Trump supporters. …
It’s a sentiment that has come to haunt Democrats, who still have the opportunity to connect with on-the-fence voters — voters who, in the past several months, appear to be edging closer to Trump.” …
I’m not inclined to try to put the BS that was put out at Davos into my own words.
@Fred,
Nobody is asking you to post BS. AB is asking you to *stop* violating copyrights here by copying and pasting more than the 10% allowed for fair use. If you can’t follow the rules and don’t want to use your own words, just *don’t post it at all*, capisce?
And you could have posted the entire title of the article, although would suggest it was more about Jamie Dimon than anything else. That way people could go looking for it on their own.
‘On-the-fence’ is really immaterial/irrelevant.
@Fred,
Looks like you didn’t understand my post. It wasn’t, nor was it intended to be, a complete summary of the BG article content. The “on-the-fence” phrase did appear in the article I referenced. I guess the author thought it was relevant, even if you fail to see the relevance. The BG article also cited Jamie Dimon, who I didn’t reference. I never said or implied that “on-the-fence” was part of the of the BG article title or the only thing in the article.
What I did was make a fair summary of the article’s main point *in my own words* and then use it to make the larger point (again, in my own words) that voters who feel pushed towards Trump because they feel dissed by Democrats are blind to the utter contempt Trump has for them.
I’m sorry this is so hard for you.
Weirdly enuf, you & I agree about a lot of stuff.
But you left out the title of the article you cited, and you high-lighted the use of the term ‘on-the-fence voter’ suggesting what exactly? Confusion? Stupidity?
That left it harder to figure what we you were getting at.
Maybe you meant this to be so.
I understand what you wrote well enough. I believed it needed clarification.
I think it’s important to realize that Nikki Haley wants unenrolled voters to vote for her instead of Biden. Ad Biden supporters want them to vote for Joe. That seems very clear.
Ah, Fred,
Nothing weird about leaving off the title when my focus was the content. Newspaper titles are usually not written by the author. Know what’s weird? Cutting and pasting nearly the entire content of an article when that’s a violation of copyright and you’ve been asked repeatedly not to. That’s weird. And wrong.
The article in the Globe had little to do with Jamie Dimon. The article was actually about how to appeal to undecided voters, aka “on-the-fence” voters, in the 2024 POTUS election. The Jamie Dimon quote was just clickbait. The focus of my post at AB was on the substance of the article, not its title or the names of the people quoted in the article.
Hope that helps.
As I’ve posted, Biden is not on the NH primary ballot, in a spat having to do with election timing and South Carolina. But a campaign has been mounted to get him a lot of write-in votes.
Nikki Halley wants those votes. Jamie Dimon, Chase CEO, decided to weigh in.
I have to wonder if voters in NH really care at all about what Jamie Dimon has to say to them.
Getting more politically sophisticated must involve ignoring this spat, and ignoring Jamie Dimon.
@Fred,
If ignoring Jamie Dimon’s political bleats makes me politically sophisticated, I’ve been politically sophisticated all my life. I didn’t realize the bar was so low.
I’m guessing you’re p-s enuf to vote for Joe Biden.
@Fred,
“I have to wonder if voters in NH really care at all about what Jamie Dimon has to say to them.”
I doubt more than 20% of NH voters could tell you who Jamie Dimon is.
There many, many ‘flatlanders’ up in NH who migrated north from MA to try to avoid MA taxes (and ended up paying pretty high NH property taxes) and moved the political climate left. These folks are (maybe?) not highly regarded by the more rock-ribbed NH citizens who favor the GOP.
This is how it happens that NH presently has no GOP members in its Congressional delegation, despite a legislature that is GOP-dominated.
“The Republican Party controls the offices of governor, secretary of state, attorney general, and both chambers of the state legislature.”
Party control of New Hampshire state government – Ballotpedia
United States congressional delegations from New Hampshire – Ballotpedia
There’s more, but it seems I’ve said too much already.
The ‘more’ has to do with another right-leaning political force in NH that cannot be named.
I must note that at Davos this year, much was said (by Jamie Dimon & others) that ‘Trump was probably going to win re-election’ & mega-corp America had better be ready to suck up to him (my words.)
I believe there are more ‘on-the-fence’ (registered unenrolled, not in a party) voters in NH than in either party. So they are a political force to be reckoned with up theah, it seems.
I used to be one of those myself, down here in the flatlands of MA.
@Fred,
From what I can tell, “on-the-fence* voters aren’t genuinely ambivalent about the cost-benefit of a Trump vote, they’re just low-information voters. Such voters don’t care about the consequences to the nation, they care which side has supporters who hurt their fee-fees.
Well, some are & some aren’t, no doubt. If you want to feel like you have any kind of a say in our two-party guv’mint system, you gotta be ‘in’ one of the parties. It’s a ruse perhaps, generates some cash flow coming in.
I live and vote in NH.
I believe a registered/on spot registered voter can declare/change party at the polling place, and vote in that party they desire that day.
At the diner yesterday AM a candidate idk who showed up as I was leaving. Was not all that crowded!
NY Times – January 19
as the NH secretary of state’s website explains
And presumably it also means
in order for registered Republicans to vote in the state’s Democratic primary, they needed to have changed their party affiliation months ago.
@Scott,
The fact that you refer to them as “Democrat Presidents” instead of Democratic Presidents is a right-wing tell.
And I’m supposed to be impressed by the assertion that “a number of liberals who hated Trump are at least admitting that he did a good job?” Seriously?
Anti-Trump Republicans have rallied around Nikki Haley ahead of New Hampshire’s primary.
NY Times – just in
For the Anti-Trump Wing of the G.O.P., It All Comes Down to Tuesday
The old guard of the Republican Party has rallied around Nikki Haley ahead of New Hampshire’s primary, in a long-shot bid to stop the former president’s march to the nomination.
Unfortunately, even if Trump were to lose NH, he’s just going to go win Haley’s home state of South Carolina & also of likely VP nom Tim Scott (where Biden is set to win the Dem primary, but will never win their electoral votes.)
@Fred,
Trump will be the GOP nominee. That’s been obvious for months. The primaries are just theater, grist for MSM clickbait and Sunday morning press the meat talk shows.
The article in the Globe was primarily about assertions from mega-banker Jamie Dimon, and used the term ‘on-the-fence voter’ once to refer to unenrolled voters, who are technically registered, but not to a political party.
That means they don’t want to be IN a political party.
It does not mean they are ‘undecided’. It means they can’t vote, in primaries.
Primaries are for party members only. So if they decide to vote, they have to at least briefly be in a particular party. I struggled with this in MA for many years, because I did not want to be in a party per se. Eventually, I caved. I was never ‘on-the-fence’. That’s perjorative. I was simply denied the privilege of voting for which candidates were to appear in presidential elections. Not too democratic really. So it goes with ‘two-party systems’.
Twice as good as ‘one-party systems’, at least.
Better to allow unenrolled voters to vote in both primaries.
Note that CA has an open primary system, where the top two vote-getters for a particular post get to be on the general election. Not too long ago, the top two candidates for a Senate seat (I believe) were Dems, and no GOP candidate for that post made it to the general election that followed. But that’s California.
DeSants announced that he is out of the race, and endorsed Trump.
All of a sudden, it’s slightly interesting whether Trump (whom he endorsed) will pick up his voters, or whether it will be Haley.
538: “According to the 538/Ipsos poll, which was conducted Jan. 10-17 using Ipsos’s KnowledgePanel, Trump is in a dominant position. 67% of likely Republican primary voters said they were at least considering voting for him, 43% said they were considering voting for DeSantis, and 39% said they were considering voting for Haley.”
A Jan 17 Globe/Suffolk/NBC poll had it at Trump, 50%; Haley, 34%; DeSantis, 5%.