An interesting excerpt from a book written 15 years ago.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/leadership/greenstein.html

I think the lack of interest in this post speaks volumes.

it was written by an elitist AKA smart person ... so it has to be a lie or written to discredit Trump

Trump is not a great Pres, Obama was not a great Pres. In both we got what we deserved.

Hillary and Sanders would have been terrible. Would Mitt have been good? Dunno. But I think he would have been better than T or O.

When was the last good one? George Sr? Ronnie?

Carter sucked. Don't know enough about Ford. Nixon is Nixon. Johnson was terrible.

But Abraham Lincoln is not walking through that door.

Last good one was Obama. I actually think it is too bad you don't see it.Hillary would have been fine, but people like to hate her. She is annoying but her policies would have been dramatically better than Donny numb nuts or w.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://media1.tenor.com/images/f5b07ed7b89834b85de39dc283df5757/tenor.gif?itemid=3566807

Hillary was #^&#^&#^&#^&

Last good one was probably RR, senior wasn't bad, had a lot of chit dumped on his plate that the country wasn't ready to deal with yet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is funny
Hahaha
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Last good one was Obama. I actually think it is too bad you don't see it.Hillary would have been fine, but people like to hate her. She is annoying but her policies would have been dramatically better than Donny numb nuts or w.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device




Sorry - he may have been the last decent man in office (Trump is not decent) but his policies were generally poor to horrible, FP was a disaster (not all his fault, some inherited)

The paper is not about policy, though I am sure the authors views may have colored it somewhat one way or another, but about what qualities make an effective president.
He lists 6 qualities that he considered.
It was written in the last Bush administration.
What do you think Obama and Trumps weaknesses and strengths are in these categories? Not looking at their Policies.
It's not a test and you don't have to answer, but it is an important thing to think about as a voter.
Effectiveness as a Public Communicator
Organizational Capacity
Political Skill
Vision
Cognitive Style
Emotional Intelligence

The paper is not about policy, though I am sure the authors views may have colored it somewhat one way or another, but about what qualities make an effective president.
He lists 6 qualities that he considered.
It was written in the last Bush administration.
What do you think Obama and Trumps weaknesses and strengths are in these categories? Not looking at their Policies.
It's not a test and you don't have to answer, but it is an important thing to think about as a voter.
Effectiveness as a Public Communicator
Organizational Capacity
Political Skill
Vision
Cognitive Style
Emotional Intelligence

Are any of these things anywhere near as important, as policy?

Trump's political skill is beyond measure, otherwise Hilary would be POTUS. The biggest jerk ever, beat (crushed) the most inevitable candidate ever.

Trump maybe has the lowest emotional intelligence (whatever that is) ever, but who cares. I mean he's embarrassing, but I'd rather have an effective jerk than a decent guy who is clueless.

But Abraham Lincoln is not walking through that door.

Condaleeza Rice is at Stanford. We may have to pass a law ordering her to be POTUS under penalty of death. She's what the nation needs. Maybe Nikki Haley? That's a big maybe, but she'll probably be the next GOP nominee not named Donald Trump.

Are any of these things anywhere near as important, as policy?

Trump's political skill is beyond measure, otherwise Hilary would be POTUS. The biggest jerk ever, beat (crushed) the most inevitable candidate ever.

Trump maybe has the lowest emotional intelligence (whatever that is) ever, but who cares. I mean he's embarrassing, but I'd rather have an effective jerk than a decent guy who is clueless.
You could have the greatest policy in the world but history won't care if it only is in thought.
Political skill is more than getting elected.
You need to be able to get enough of a group to be able to enact thru legislation the things you want and not give up too much. If you don't get the legislation the next guy can wipe your work off the board. Look at the last president.
Here's a definition for you, success however is always subject to definition.
e·mo·tion·al in·tel·li·gence
noun
the capacity to be aware of, control, and express one's emotions, and to handle interpersonal relationships judiciously and empathetically.
"emotional intelligence is the key to both personal and professional success"

You could have the greatest policy in the world but history won't care if it only is in thought.
Political skill is more than getting elected.
You need to be able to get enough of a group to be able to enact thru legislation the things you want and not give up too much. If you don't get the legislation the next guy can wipe your work off the board. Look at the last president.
Here's a definition for you, success however is always subject to definition.
e·mo·tion·al in·tel·li·gence
noun
the capacity to be aware of, control, and express one's emotions, and to handle interpersonal relationships judiciously and empathetically.
"emotional intelligence is the key to both personal and professional success"

Ok for Gods sake, if something isn't implemented it's not policy, it's an idea. If it makes you feel better, I mean "implemented policy" is a million times more important than the soft skills you listed.

"Political skill is more than getting elected"

agreed. He also brought the NFL and ESPN to their knees, got Neil Gosrich confirmed, is helping the economy roll along, has terrorists on the run, got hos tax cuts passed.

"You need to be able to get enough of a group to be able to enact thru legislation the things you want "

That's obviously true, and it's equally obvious that he has that, it's not like everything he wants to do is getting blocked. He's doing a lot.

"emotional intelligence is the key to both personal and professional success"

well Trump is a billionaire, married to a hottie, who defied the odds and crushed the favorite candidate to get elected POTUS. So if emotional intelligence is "the" key to success, then he must have emotional intelligence coming out of his ears.

He's not a good guy, but he's a success by any definition.

In my opinion, "emotional intelligence" is the bullsh*t term-de-jour of human resources folks and motivational speakers who want to get paid to try to convince us that it's "the" key to success., and only they can help us harness the power of "the" key to success.

Damn. Clearly I've been working from the wrong list all these years.Would've thought "character" would make the top 6. Thank God there are guys like Fred Greenstein to make lists and opine, and other guys who attach weight to their drivel. Otherwise,the rest of us might think for ourselves.

Damn. Clearly I've been working from the wrong list all these years.Would've thought "character" would make the top 6. Thank God there are guys like Fred Greenstein to make lists and opine, and other guys who attach weight to their drivel. Otherwise,the rest of us might think for ourselves.
Some might say that Character was assumed, but that does explain the last election.
Since Character was not on the list it was not accounted for, by either party.

and you can add in morality and integrity

and you can add in morality and integrity

Bill Clinton was a pretty good potus, and morality and decency had nothing to do with it. He was a scumbag, a complete and utter scumbag.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn’t read all ththe pst posts but what I think is needed to make a great president is to take the reigns and put aside EVERYTHING to do what is best for all people of this country and not pander to one party over another. It’s pretty obvious none of that is going on now
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who was the last president who did not pander to his party Nebe?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn’t read all ththe pst posts but what I think is needed to make a great president is to take the reigns and put aside EVERYTHING to do what is best for all people of this country and not pander to one party over another. It’s pretty obvious none of that is going on now
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump thinks he is doing what is best for all the people. Obama thought he was doing that. The Bush's thought they were doing that. Carter thought he was doing that. Nixon, Kennedy, Eisenhower, etc., etc., thought they were doing that. I just can't get myself to admit that Clinton thought that.

And yet he was only the second president to balance the budget
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump's political skill is beyond measure, otherwise Hilary would be POTUS. The biggest jerk ever, beat (crushed) the most inevitable candidate ever.


He is good at inciting anger. He beat the most hated candidate ever. There are plenty of people here and all over america who would never vote for her no matter what. That is not political skill beyond measure. You are demonstrating your math skills again when you say he crushed her. 45 of 58 of presidential elections were won by larger margins in the electoral college (that is 77.6% were won by more; his victory is in the bottom 1/4 of all margins) and he lost the popular vote by 3 million.

Trump thinks he is doing what is best for all the people.
Trump is doing what he thinks is best for Trump. Many if not most of our Presidents have had big egos which isn’t a bad thing. This is different.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What trump is doing is creating a circus to distract us from the fact that they are dismantling the government piece by piece and taking away protections set in place for the environment. To prove this, look no further than melanoma’s jacket stunt yesterday. “I don’t care, do you?” It’s all a circus created to cause a smoke screen.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He is good at inciting anger. He beat the most hated candidate ever. There are plenty of people here and all over america who would never vote for her no matter what. That is not political skill beyond measure. You are demonstrating your math skills again when you say he crushed her. 45 of 58 of presidential elections were won by larger margins in the electoral college (that is 77.6% were won by more; his victory is in the bottom 1/4 of all margins) and he lost the popular vote by 3 million.

Too much kool-aid

What trump is doing is creating a circus to distract us from the fact that they are dismantling the government piece by piece and taking away protections set in place for the environment. To prove this, look no further than melanoma’s jacket stunt yesterday. “I don’t care, do you?” It’s all a circus created to cause a smoke screen.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Too much weed

Trump is doing what he thinks is best for Trump. Many if not most of our Presidents have had big egos which isn’t a bad thing. This is different.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Too many martinis and bad decisions at the DNC
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/393726-trump-autographs-photos-of-people-killed-by-undocumented-immigrants

Case in point.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He is good at inciting anger. He beat the most hated candidate ever. There are plenty of people here and all over america who would never vote for her no matter what. That is not political skill beyond measure. You are demonstrating your math skills again when you say he crushed her. 45 of 58 of presidential elections were won by larger margins in the electoral college (that is 77.6% were won by more; his victory is in the bottom 1/4 of all margins) and he lost the popular vote by 3 million.

He’s good at angering the other side. You’re telling me that republicans are angrier than democrats? I’ll ask for the 25th time, when was the last time you saw a politically motivated riot, started by republicans? We don’t have much to be angry at at the moment, unless you live in the People’s Republic Of Connecticut.

And he crushed her, it wasn’t close. He didn’t win by a nose.

What’s on display is your inability to accept that which doesn’t serve your personal agenda.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He’s good at angering the other side. You’re telling me that republicans are angrier than democrats? I’ll ask for the 25th time, when was the last time you saw a politically motivated riot, started by republicans? We don’t have much to be angry at at the moment, unless you live in the People’s Republic Of Connecticut.

And he crushed her, it wasn’t close. He didn’t win by a nose.

What’s on display is your inability to accept that which doesn’t serve your personal agenda.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he crushed her? She won the popular vote...:smash::smash::smash:

he crushed her? She won the popular vote...:smash::smash::smash:

And according to the tally that actually matters, he clobbered her. He devised a campaign strategy around getting electoral votes. She, perhaps never having bothered to learn how a presidential election works, spent all her time in NYC and CA which she was going to win anyway. She spent almost no time in places like Wisconsin. Too many deplorables, I guess.

If the popular vote mattered a frog's fat ass, Trump would have campaigned differently, who knows how it would have tuned out. We cannot know. What we do know, is that as far as electoral math goes, it wasn't close.

And yet he was only the second president to balance the budget
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Congress is in charge of the budget.

My point in citing Presidents who had opposing views yet thought (in my opinion) that they were doing the best for all of the people, is that without an agreed upon standard, "best" is subjective. The only official political standard of what is best, that should apply to all politicians, is preserving, protecting, and defending the U.S. Constitution. All other "bests" are matters of opinion.

Some might say that Character was assumed, but that does explain the last election.
Since Character was not on the list it was not accounted for, by either party.

Ding, Ding, Ding.

I didn’t read all ththe pst posts but what I think is needed to make a great president is to take the reigns and put aside EVERYTHING to do what is best for all people of this country and not pander to one party over another. It’s pretty obvious none of that is going on now
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Nor the last admin.



And yet he was only the second president to balance the budget
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For a terribly brief time after being dragged there by Congress.

Congress is in charge of the budget.


^^^^^

Congress is in charge of the budget.

My point in citing Presidents who had opposing views yet thought (in my opinion) that they were doing the best for all of the people, is that without an agreed upon standard, "best" is subjective. The only official political standard of what is best, that should apply to all politicians, is preserving, protecting, and defending the U.S. Constitution. All other "bests" are matters of opinion.

Duh, yeah, but the president with control can certainly blow up the budget and we have yet to see what each years submission is going to include, but I'm guessing balancing the budget isn't in the cards during this administration.

What trump is doing is creating a circus to distract us from the fact that they are dismantling the government piece by piece and taking away protections set in place for the environment. To prove this, look no further than melanoma’s jacket stunt yesterday. “I don’t care, do you?” It’s all a circus created to cause a smoke screen.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

2019 budget

Too much kool-aid

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think you are confused about what the phrase means.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And according to the tally that actually matters, he clobbered her. .

Clobbered her by less than almost all other candidates clobbered there opponents. I guess if that makes you feel better...
If 0.6% of the vote in Florida and 0.35 % of the vote in pa flipped, she wins.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Duh, yeah, but the president with control can certainly blow up the budget

Duh, no, the President does not have the power to force congress to spend money or balance a budget. He may propose a budget, or veto one, but it is entirely up to Congress to spend the money. And no, Bill Clinton did not balance the budget: https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/no-bill-clinton-didnt-balance-budget

and we have yet to see what each years submission is going to include, but I'm guessing balancing the budget isn't in the cards during this administration.

There have been few budgets to balance since the Gingrich one. It's been mostly continuing resolutions. In any case, the national debt, a far more important metric, has continuously risen, even when Gingrich's Congress balanced the budget. And it will continue to rise under Trump. The last Presidential administration to lower the debt was Calvin Coolidge's

Clobbered her by less than almost all other candidates clobbered there opponents. I guess if that makes you feel better...
If 0.6% of the vote in Florida and 0.35 % of the vote in pa flipped, she wins.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


This is where people opine "Only if she went to Wisconsin"

Clobbered her by less than almost all other candidates clobbered there opponents. I guess if that makes you feel better...
If 0.6% of the vote in Florida and 0.35 % of the vote in pa flipped, she wins.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It. Wasn’t. Close.

“If” my aunt had wheels she’d be a tea cart.

And yes it does make me feel better.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It. Wasn’t. Close.


But if it was, how would that make you feel?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But if it was, how would that make you feel?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

like retreating to a safe space?......:rotf2:

like retreating to a safe space?......:rotf2:
So now you’re resorting to fictional characters and magical trolls. Fitting.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But if it was, how would that make you feel?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I’d feel just as good. But it wasn’t.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I’d feel just as good. But it wasn’t.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Womp Womp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm sorry boys and girls. I voted for a guy that had a plan not for someone that wanted to plant there plump ass in a chair and smile doing nothing.

I'm sorry boys and girls. I voted for a guy that had a plan not for someone that wanted to plant there plump ass in a chair and smile doing nothing.

Sorry your candidate didn't win the primary.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Since this thread is a train wreck anyways
"Somehow, some day, people - especially trump's base - will come to realize trump has NO interest at all in America - not the slightest hint of an interest. He is old, used up and in his dotage so he couldn't care less about anything other than having his ego stroked. That's why he goes to his rallies - his pity parties - to have a crowd cheer him. He doesn't care about the effect of his policies on the country. He cares that they stir dissension and more applause for him from his base. When someone dares to disagree, he tears into them with a vengeance to encourage his base to erupt.

Trump is what he's always been - a lying, hypocritical, bigoted fraud. He successfully dodged the draft but excuses himself by saying he worked hard to build "beautiful buildings" and create thousands of jobs. In fact what he did was trick and cheat banks, contractors and others who trusted him - including his wives. When the banks or contractors refused to cave to his determination to change the contract, he took bankruptcy - six times.

His only goal - if he really has one - is to grab what he can for his kids and cronies. He knows he'll stroke out soon and is not the least concerned about a legacy beyond the idea he got great tv ratings. For those who disagree, remember how he has said he thinks of you - stupid. So stupid he could shoot you in the street and no one would notice. So stupid he can tell you he'll have Mexico build his wall and you believed it. So stupid he can tell you how he's going to have health care for all and you believed it. Then the infrastructure and get us out of the mideast and stop mass murder by assault rifle. He's a lying con man with a base of gullible fools"
Written by HCB

Hey don't forget the impact that the trade war is and will be having on those who voted for him, they are in fact stupid if they think the little tax break they got is going to offset what they will pay in jobs and the cost of goods if the trade war continues. Hope they aren't planning on building a new home, the cost of their lumber just went through the roof.

Hey don't forget the impact that the trade war is and will be having on those who voted for him, they are in fact stupid if they think the little tax break they got is going to offset what they will pay in jobs and the cost of goods if the trade war continues. Hope they aren't planning on building a new home, the cost of their lumber just went through the roof.
Layoffs are already happening.

Now the trade war is America vs America

Trump threatens Harley-Davidson with taxes ‘like never before’ and predicts its eventual collapse

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/06/26/trump-threatens-harley-davidson-with-taxes-like-never-before-and-eventual-collapse/?utm_term=.1af657fc61c6

Imagine if President Obama threatened a company like Pres. Trump does. John would have to turn on that server in his basement just for the activity in that thread.

Layoffs are already happening.

Now the trade war is America vs America

Trump threatens Harley-Davidson with taxes ‘like never before’ and predicts its eventual collapse

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/06/26/trump-threatens-harley-davidson-with-taxes-like-never-before-and-eventual-collapse/?utm_term=.1af657fc61c6
When someone dares to disagree, he tears into them with a vengeance to encourage his base to erupt.

When someone dares to disagree, he tears into them with a vengeance to encourage his base to erupt.
It's a cult addicted to the adrenaline rush. He can tear into friends and even Americans and they simply don't care...it's going to continue to get worse as the investigations start exposing the truth and Trump has to get even more extreme (if that's possible) in an attempt to distract and rally the troops.

It's a cult addicted to the adrenaline rush. He can tear into friends and even Americans and they simply don't care...it's going to continue to get worse as the investigations start exposing the truth and Trump has to get even more extreme (if that's possible) in an attempt to distract and rally the troops.

KEEP HOPE ALIVE!

KEEP HOPE ALIVE!

Why did they flip Hope Hicks too?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's a cult addicted to the adrenaline rush.



I know right...

"Peter Fonda called for pedophiles to rape Trump's 12-year-old son.

Democratic congresswoman Maxine Waters called for mob violence against conservatives and Republicans wherever they are seen in public.

Kathy Griffin symbolically performed a bloody beheading of Trump.

Snoop Dogg symbolically shot Trump in the head.

Madonna expressed her desire to blow up the White House.

Deranged Democrat Laurence Key vowed to kill Republican Brian Mast's kids over our immigration policy.

I know right...

"Peter Fonda called for pedophiles to rape Trump's 12-year-old son.

Democratic congresswoman Maxine Waters called for mob violence against conservatives and Republicans wherever they are seen in public.

Kathy Griffin symbolically performed a bloody beheading of Trump.

Snoop Dogg symbolically shot Trump in the head.

Madonna expressed her desire to blow up the White House.

Deranged Democrat Laurence Key vowed to kill Republican Brian Mast's kids over our immigration policy.

Context


or Intent


or Protest


or....or....or.....C'mon, there's gotta be some reason why this is OK.

or....or....or.....C'mon, there's gotta be some reason why this is OK.
Funny thing is I pay a lot of attention to politics and haven't heard of a single one of those events in the media. That being said, just being crude is a far cry from actually showing bigotry to those who are under your sphere of control.

You guys keep arguing pennies and hundred dollar bills are the same thing because they're both money...

Funny thing is I pay a lot of attention to politics and haven't heard of a single one of those events in the media. That being said, just being crude is a far cry from actually showing bigotry to those who are under your sphere of control.

You guys keep arguing pennies and hundred dollar bills are the same thing because they're both money...

you are out of your mind :kewl:

He pays attention to half of politics.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Funny thing is I pay a lot of attention to politics and haven't heard of a single one of those events in the media.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/12/18/article-2525602-1A2B2A3600000578-553_634x408.jpg

Context


or Intent


or Protest


or....or....or.....C'mon, there's gotta be some reason why this is OK.

"I'm going to take a little liberty with some Hyperbole.

But say you witnessed a 100,000 people frothing at the mouth at his rallies, that number would only represent .03% of the population. (325,700,000)

That same number would only be .16% of the people who voted for him (62,980,160)

But yet, people have no problem posting up videos of a few of people on YouTube being ignorant A-holes and saying this is Trumps America.

Its Shameful and Irresponsible."
From another thread Posted by, guess who?

"I'm going to take a little liberty with some Hyperbole.

But say you witnessed a 100,000 people frothing at the mouth at his rallies, that number would only represent .03% of the population. (325,700,000)

That same number would only be .16% of the people who voted for him (62,980,160)

But yet, people have no problem posting up videos of a few of people on YouTube being ignorant A-holes and saying this is Trumps America.

Its Shameful and Irresponsible."
From another thread Posted by, guess who?

Point???

Funny thing is I pay a lot of attention to politics and haven't heard of a single one of those events in the media.

I suppose next you're going to expect us to believe you don't watch CNN :hihi:

Peter Fonda called for pedophiles to rape Trump's 12-year-old son.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/20/politics/peter-fonda-baron-trump-secret-service/index.html

Kathy Griffin symbolically performed a bloody beheading of Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/30/entertainment/kathy-griffin-trump-tyler-shields/index.html

Snoop Dogg symbolically shot Trump in the head.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/14/entertainment/snoop-dogg-donald-trump-video/index.html

Madonna expressed her desire to blow up the White House.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/21/politics/madonna-speech-march/index.html

I suppose next you're going to expect us to believe you don't watch CNN
Not very often. Maybe Jake Tapper once in a while but that's about it.

Not very often. Maybe Jake Tapper once in a while but that's about it.

then what is your "Go To" news source?

then what is your "Go To" news source?
Don't really have one. WaPo is good. The Hill is pretty decent for politics. WSJ, NBC. Like to read more than listen to talking heads and avoid the fringe sites like Fox News.

Point???
If a few outliers don’t define Trumps group why does it not work the same for Democrats
Are they somehow more homogeneous than other groups
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If a few outliers don’t define Trumps group why does it not work the same for Democrats
Are they somehow more homogeneous than other groups
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Touche'

I'll give ya that one.

Touche'

I'll give ya that one.

Nice move. You got Pete to admit that a few outliers don't define Trump's group. But I don't think you could convince Spence and wdmso that the few are outliers or that they are merely few. Actually, I don't think Pete thinks they are either. He kinda posed a trick question.

Nice move. You got Pete to admit that a few outliers don't define Trump's group. But I don't think you could convince Spence and wdmso that the few are outliers or that they are merely few. Actually, I don't think Pete thinks they are either. He kinda posed a trick question.
How about Trump defining his own group?

Perhaps some would recognize themselves in this
Take it with a grain of salt, please

An Analysis of Trump Supporters Has Identified 5 Key Traits
A new report sheds light on the psychological basis for Trump's support.
Posted Dec 31, 2017

Gage Skidmore/Creative Commons
Source: Gage Skidmore/Creative Commons
The lightning-fast ascent and political invincibility of Donald Trump has left many experts baffled and wondering, “How did we get here?” Any accurate and sufficient answer to that question must not only focus on Trump himself, but also on his uniquely loyal supporters. Given their extreme devotion and unwavering admiration for their highly unpredictable and often inflammatory leader, some have turned to the field of psychology for scientific explanations based on precise quantitative data and established theoretical frameworks.

Although analyses and studies by psychologists and neuroscientists have provided many thought-provoking explanations for his enduring support, the accounts of different experts often vary greatly, sometimes overlapping and other times conflicting. However insightful these critiques may be, it is apparent that more research and examination is needed to hone in on the exact psychological and social factors underlying this peculiar human behavior.

In a recent review paper published in the Journal of Social and Political Psychology, Psychologist and UC Santa Cruz professor Thomas Pettigrew argues that five major psychological phenomena can help explain this exceptional political event.

1. Authoritarian Personality Syndrome

Authoritarianism refers to the advocacy or enforcement of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom, and is commonly associated with a lack of concern for the opinions or needs of others. Authoritarian personality syndrome—a well-studied and globally-prevalent condition—is a state of mind that is characterized by belief in total and complete obedience to one’s authority. Those with the syndrome often display aggression toward outgroup members, submissiveness to authority, resistance to new experiences, and a rigid hierarchical view of society. The syndrome is often triggered by fear, making it easy for leaders who exaggerate threat or fear monger to gain their allegiance.
Although authoritarian personality is found among liberals, it is more common among the right-wing around the world. President Trump’s speeches, which are laced with absolutist terms like “losers” and “complete disasters,” are naturally appealing to those with the syndrome.
While research showed that Republican voters in the U.S. scored higher than Democrats on measures of authoritarianism before Trump emerged on the political scene, a 2016 Politico survey found that high authoritarians greatly favored then-candidate Trump, which led to a correct prediction that he would win the election, despite the polls saying otherwise.

2. Social dominance orientation
Social dominance orientation (SDO)—which is distinct but related to authoritarian personality syndrome—refers to people who have a preference for the societal hierarchy of groups, specifically with a structure in which the high-status groups have dominance over the low-status ones. Those with SDO are typically dominant, tough-minded, and driven by self-interest.
In Trump’s speeches, he appeals to those with SDO by repeatedly making a clear distinction between groups that have a generally higher status in society (White), and those groups that are typically thought of as belonging to a lower status (immigrants and minorities).
A 2016 survey study of 406 American adults published this year in the journal Personality and Individual Differences found that those who scored high on both SDO and authoritarianism were those who intended to vote for Trump in the election.

3. Prejudice
It would be grossly unfair and inaccurate to say that every one of Trump’s supporters have prejudice against ethnic and religious minorities, but it would be equally inaccurate to say that many do not. It is a well-known fact that the Republican party, going at least as far back to Richard Nixon’s “southern strategy,” used strategies that appealed to bigotry, such as lacing speeches with “dog whistles”—code words that signaled prejudice toward minorities that were designed to be heard by racists but no one else.

While the dog whistles of the past were more subtle, Trump’s are sometimes shockingly direct. There’s no denying that he routinely appeals to bigoted supporters when he calls Muslims “dangerous” and Mexican immigrants “rapists” and “murderers,” often in a blanketed fashion. Perhaps unsurprisingly, a new study has shown that support for Trump is correlated with a standard scale of modern racism.

4. Intergroup contact
Intergroup contact refers to contact with members of groups that are outside one’s own, which has been experimentally shown to reduce prejudice. As such, it’s important to note that there is growing evidence that Trump’s white supporters have experienced significantly less contact with minorities than other Americans. For example, a 2016 study found that “…the racial and ethnic isolation of Whites at the zip-code level is one of the strongest predictors of Trump support.” This correlation persisted while controlling for dozens of other variables. In agreement with this finding, the same researchers found that support for Trump increased with the voters’ physical distance from the Mexican border.

5. Relative deprivation

Relative deprivation refers to the experience of being deprived of something to which one believes they are entitled. It is the discontent felt when one compares their position in life to others who they feel are equal or inferior but have unfairly had more success than them.
Common explanations for Trump’s popularity among non-bigoted voters involve economics. There is no doubt that some Trump supporters are simply angry that American jobs are being lost to Mexico and China, which is certainly understandable, although these loyalists often ignore the fact that some of these careers are actually being lost due to the accelerating pace of automation.
These Trump supporters are experiencing relative deprivation, and are common among the swing states like Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. This kind of deprivation is specifically referred to as “relative,” as opposed to “absolute,” because the feeling is often based on a skewed perception of what one is entitled to. For example, an analysis conducted by FiveThirtyEight estimated that the median annual income of Trump supporters was $72,000.
If such data is accurate, the portrayal of most Trump supporters as “working class” citizens rebelling against Republican elites may be more myth than fact.

This article was originally published at Raw Story.

How about Trump defining his own group?

That can be taken in at least two ways. I think the way you mean is Trump being the definition. Another way being Trump saying what the definition is. You and he, obviously would disagree in either instance. It would be a matter of opinion. You cite a lot of biased opinions and misinterpreted (intentionally or not) quotes and selected actions selectively interpreted by you and others. A whole lot of people disagree with you and your citations. Again, matters of opinion.

Perhaps some would recognize themselves in this
Take it with a grain of salt, please

An Analysis of Trump Supporters Has Identified 5 Key Traits
A new report sheds light on the psychological basis for Trump's support.

.

Your article is mostly academic cultural Marxist and Progressive pap. An example being Pettigrew's notion of "Intergroup Contact." You don't need studies and experiments to understand that contact will influence perception, and that it can lead to acceptance over prejudice. But making it a postulate requires blinders. Pettigrew's belief that intergroup contact between blacks and whites made available in South Africa due to the end of Apartheid supported his theory when he prematurely said in 2006:

"They’ve only been at it 12 years, and the jury is still out, but the progress I saw was amazing. Contact between the races was very polite and a bit formal, as people don’t quite know how to act with each other. But polite beats anything else but warm.”

Actually, now, contact is hot. Prejudice is stronger and deadlier than it was under Apartheid. But it is now Black prejudice against whites, with the goal of removing any whites from South Africa, except those with necessary expertise--even by genocide if necessary.

You could negatively apply any of his five "psychological phenomena" to any election of American Presidents, or of leaders anywhere in the world.

His "Authoritarian Personality Syndrome"--"Authoritarianism refers to the advocacy or enforcement of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom, and is commonly associated with a lack of concern for the opinions or needs of others" was especially amusing to me. That is exactly the "Syndrome" that leads to Socialist type of governments--Progressive Syndrome being one of those types. Attributing Pettigrew's Authoritarian Syndrome to most of Trump's voters is a hoot. I know lots of Trump voters, including myself, and those on this forum, who didn't vote for trump because we are submissive to authority. Quite the contrary, we were tired of being authoritatively told how we must live our lives, and tired of authoritarian Progressive types using fear tactics (Trump in this instance being made to look like a devious maniac who would destroy the country) to try to persuade us to vote for them, all the while being accused of racism and other selectively defined negatives.

Academic types seem incapable of accepting what voters said was their reason for voting for Trump. Only deep, dark, psychological mysterious motives postulated by psycho-babble could be persuasive enough to sound plausible to them. As exemplified by this paragraph from your article:

"Although analyses and studies by psychologists and neuroscientists have provided many thought-provoking explanations for his enduring support, the accounts of different experts often vary greatly, sometimes overlapping and other times conflicting. However insightful these critiques may be, it is apparent that more research and examination is needed to hone in on the exact psychological and social factors underlying this peculiar human behavior."

Pass the salt, please.