Americans don't think Trump is qualified. Why they elected him anyway

Perhaps Bill Schneider and the rest of the "pundits" who got it so wrong actually talked to Trump supporters instead of analysing them they would have learned that, in addition to giving the finger to the Establishment, that 1.) illegal immigration is a problem both economically and in terms of national security,** 2.) amnesty for illegals (done once is 1965) would tilt voting power in favour of the Democrats for the next 50 years, 3.) the majority of the US did not and does not want Obama Care, 4.) and we don't like things being rammed down our throats via executive order and 5.) regardless of the semantics over Hilary's emails, the majority of the US knows she broke the law in order to enrich herself, lied about to Congress and was grossly negligent with the handling of sensitive information that will likely lead to deaths of undercover operatives.

As a side, the media and its bias really is becoming the greatest threat to America. The press basically served as Obama's cheerleader for eight years and I bet you will see more criticism of Trump from the media in the next 24 hours for things he may have never done than you ever saw of Obama during his two terms in the White House. This is not a complaint against Obama but the press.

**Now before some of you shower me with the usual "you are a racist" and "you are a bigot" please remember that I wrote ILLEGAL immigration. There is a difference. I am all for legal immigration but not illegal.

One of BS's comments about '..elitist to the core..' is completely off the mark. Disgust with HRC and her lying and Obama's health care plans as well as rejection of HRC's connections to Wall Street et al - those were just some of the reasons people voted for DJT and against HRC. An exceptional piece of writing - but not in a good way.

It wasn't a vote FOR Mr. Trump. It was a vote AGAINST Ms. Clinton.

Trump was right, the system is rigged. Clinton won the popular vote but still lost. No other country on Earth does that, so Yanks are complaining about something they themselves created

Keeping things in some perspective, was Ronald Reagan qualified to do much of anything? ...Even after he had left the Presidency? If we had lived in the age of 24 hour news and social media back in the 80s, I suspect he would have been exposed as being the biggest moron to ever hold the office. While Trump may be a loathsome populist, he is hardly the dumbest or most poorly qualified American president in history, not even No.2 or 3 on that list.

discussion on the MX missile, the Indiana congressman Lee Hamilton, an authority on national defense, reported, “Reagan’s only contribution throughout the entire hour and a half was to interrupt somewhere at midpoint to tell us he’d watched a movie the night before, and he gave us the plot from War Games.”

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/28/behind_the_ronald_reagan_myth_no_one_had_ever_entered_the_white_house_so_grossly_ill_informed/

What planet is he living on? -Francois Mitterand

Poor dear, there's nothing between his ears. -Margaret Thatcher

Ronald Reagan is the first modern President whose contempt for the facts is treated as a charming idiosyncrasy. -James David Barber

@samwatters

I don't know about Bill Schneider, but a lot of people did talk to Trump supporters (I've talked to a few myself) and found them misinformed.

1.) illegal immigration is a problem both economically and in terms of national security,

A very complex problem that won't be solved by massive deportation. Immigrants actually work and serve a vital role in the economy and won't be easily replaced. But yes, there's a problem that needs to be solved, and both sides actually agree on that.

2.) amnesty for illegals (done once is 1965) would tilt voting power in favour of the Democrats for the next 50 years

That's a pretty crap reason to deny hard working immigrants a chance at citizenship. But it's a good political strategy, and probably why Republican politicians push so hard for it.

3.) the majority of the US did not and does not want Obama Care

They actually do when you describe it to them without "Obama" in the name.

4.) and we don't like things being rammed down our throats via executive order

If the Republicans made some effort to do their jobs and compromise or come up with a better plan, maybe an executive order wouldn't have been necessary. Face it, the Republicans played do-nothing dirty politics. Their refusal to approve Obama's Supreme Court pick was unprecedented and just one more example. I'll admit the Dems messed up by thinking Clinton was a shoe in and not pressing the issue.

5.) regardless of the semantics over Hilary's emails, the majority of the US knows she broke the law in order to enrich herself

If you're being honest with yourself, you would probably say the same about Trump's business dealings.

that will likely lead to deaths of undercover operatives.

Multiple investigations led by Republicans suggests otherwise. I don't think people like you will be satisfied until you find out that she did cause deaths. It's not unlike sticking to the birther movement even after the certificate was provided (e.g., like our next President).

As a side, the media and its bias really is becoming the greatest threat to America.

Misinformation is the greatest threat, and the media may be part of that. The mainstream media has a corporate bias, but that doesn't mean any source outside the mainstream is a accurate alternative. The mainstream still has some checks that prevent them from spouting outright lies (although Fox comes close). If you recognize the bias, though, you can filter it out.

A message to all the LEFTIST on JT.

Since you all like to use the (current year) argument, here goes.

We are living in the year 2016**, we are NOT living in the year 500 B.C**. Trump is president elect so get used to it!

^ I accept that he won fair and square. That said, Warren 2020!

BS is full of BS. Still quoting polls and the like. surely he must realize that all the analysis by pundits and journos was dead wrong. Get over it.

The top qualifications to be a high-level politician are unlimited greed and ambition, and to be a pathological liar and a thief. At least this is what many voters think, and they are justified in doing so.

What is the modern Democratic Party? It is the party of money and profit, of billionaire entertainers, Silicon Valley executives, financiers, and media moguls, the richest people in the world today. The richest senators in the American congress and senate are democrats, not republicans. Hillary and Bill have raked in hundreds of millions of dollars via their foundation since Bill left office. What do any of these people know about working class Americans? More than any other, it has been the upper level "liberals" who have become more and more rich as the middle and lower classes have declined. Ironic, isn't it?

Ronald Reagan ..... If we had lived in the age of 24 hour news and social media back in the 80s, I suspect he would have been exposed as being the biggest moron to ever hold the office.

Funny, I allus thought it was a well-known fact he was the biggest moron to hold the office (until Bush 2 came along, of course).

Actually, listening to the cadences of Trump's victory speech reminded me a lot of Reagan's way of speaking - lower your voice, speak slowly, and maybe people will think it sounds sincere. (Didn't then, doesn't now, sorry)

Clinton won the popular vote but still lost. No other country on Earth does that

UK governments are typically elected with a minority share of the vote. Since 1945, not a single UK party that formed a government has gained 50% or more of the total vote. The highest was in the 1955 election, when the Conservatives got 49.7% of the vote and took 54.8% of the seats. In 2005, Blair's Labour party got 35.2% of the votes and 55% of the seats; at the last general election Cameron claimed a 'landslide' with 36.9% of the votes and 50.9% of the seats. So the US isn't alone in having a cr@p election system.

http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/uktable.htm

(I apologise for the toilet-level vocabulary, can't think of a word that expresses the idea any better.)

"That's a pretty crap reason to deny hard working immigrants a chance at citizenship. But it's a good political strategy, and probably why Republican politicians push so hard for it."

No, Mr. Bum. You are incorrect on two counts. 1.) There IS a legal road to citizenship already in place. Those who do not follow it are breaking the law. No immigrants are being denied the opportunity to be American, they simply do not want to follow the procedure.

2.) Speaking of laws, we are a nation of laws and our rule of law is what has allowed America to become so diverse.

Screw all those "elites" with a semester of college or more. We're tired of their darn good ideas!

If we can't believe the polls predicting Hillary's landslide, how can we believe the polls saying:

Bill Schneider: ... Sixty percent of the voters had an unfavorable opinion of Trump, according to the exit polls - higher than Hillary Clinton’s 54% unfavorable. And yet Trump won. Sixty-three percent said Trump is not honest and trustworthy - higher than Clinton’s 61%. ...

Maybe because the only other option they had was Hillary. Like someone asked me the other day, would you like poop flavored curry or curry flavored poop? Not much of an option there.

I don't think gender was a big deal in this race. After all, the UK has a female leader, Canada has, Australia has, Israel has, New Zealand has, Germany does..... so what? The problem was Hillary's utter unelectability and poor performance as a candidate.

I'm also a bit sick of the casual tossing around of terms like "moron". That is exclusionary language, and hurtful to people who are differently able intellectually. I'm frankly a bit surprised that those (especially on the left) who claim to be so sensitive and inclusive would resort to such insensitive and divisive words. It's sad really that many people have come to see disagreeing on politics as being evil rather than simply disagreeing.

Trump’s slogan - “Make America Great Again!” - resonated with them because they want to restore the Old America where wages were high, immigrants were few, white men ran things and U.S. power in the world was unchallenged.

Mr. Schneider - you and Joe "they want to put you all back in chains" Biden need to give it a rest already. Trump does not advocate laws that deny people job opportunities based on race, but the Left does. Trump does not advocate deporting lawful immigrants, but Democrats encourage illegal immigration. Trump doesn't have a problem with strong women in the highest positions in his company and his daughter is probably his most trusted business advisor. Hillary and Obama both pay women on their staffs less than 90 % less than the men.

Americans know their country is in decline and the rust belt voters turned out to support Trump because they want change - and for their towns and their country to be great places to live again. The mere fact that you and others in the media and the affluent Left downplay the struggles of working class people and ascribe to them sinister motivations is why so many White former Obama supporters switched to Trump this time. Why can't you see that?

The DNC ruined it for themselves when they played dirty tricks against Bernie Sanders to get Clinton in the primaries. they underestimated the anger by Bernie supporters. If the DNC is smart, they'll run Bernie and Elizabeth Warren against Trump and Pence. That's the only fighting chance they'll have.

Absolutely. Bernie would have won it. The DNC leadership should commit seppuku.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/10/huffington-post-dnc-staffer-screams-donna-brazile-helping-elect-donald-trump/

Huffington Post: DNC Staffer Screams at Donna Brazile for Helping Elect Donald Trump

... “Why should we trust you as chair to lead us through this?” he asked, according to two people in the room. “You backed a flawed candidate, and your friend [former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz] plotted through this to support your own gain and yourself.” ...

Absolutely. Bernie would have won it.

No, Bernie would not have won it. You have to realize that Hillary was never supposed to win in the first place. The democrat party was willing to throw away the 2016 election, knowing that they would not be able to win it. They expected one of the mainstream republican candidates to win, which was likely, considering the current state of the American economy, the mess of Obamacare, and the overall poor sentiment common in America right now. They also foresee a SHTF moment occurring during the next 4 years, and they didn't want one of their own in office when it hit.

Hillary was chosen as their candidate because she was experienced enough to be viable, and even if she lost the campaign, as the mains opposition candidate she would have collected hundreds of millions in campaign contributions (as she did). The democrat party never wanted Hilary to actually win; they had already been grooming their preferred candidate for the 2020 race.

The DNC wanted Elizabeth Warren to be their "real" candidate, and first woman president, but as a freshman senator, with a thin resume, she was not ready for the election this year. If you follow the news, you will see Warren frequently in the headlines, an effort to make her name known to the public. She was supposed to be the candidate which is the terror of Wall Street, and the corporate fat cats (the irony makes me laugh).

Unfortunately for the DNC, against all odds (and heavy resistance from the RNC), Trump won in the republican primaries. Though the DNC did not really want Hillary to win, they certainly did not want Trump. From that moment, they had no choice but to fully back Hillary.

As for Bernie, he was never in the race to win. He was in the race like the other second-string candidates, to collect some tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions. That Bernie managed to do so well against Hillary was not because Bernie was a great candidate, but because Hillary was such a poor one. There is no way in hell that Bernie would have won in the general election, and you had best leave it with that.

Before anyone calls this week's election "close," consider that Hillary spent more than 50 times as much on advertising as Trump. Realize that these billionaires in Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and elsewhere provided immense support to her campaign. When you consider how much Hillary had going for her, and still managed to lose says a lot. That Trump, outspent, out-spoke, out-run, and outmaneuvered, still managed to win. And Trump won with the support of the working classes, which used to be the backbone of Hillary's party.

In the face of everything thrown against him, does no one realize the magnitude of Trump's victory?

The UK won,t see any favour from Trump. It was reported that when government leaders ring to congratulate Trump. The UK Leader was bump down to number ten the waiting list. I assumed the UK was America,s best Allied.

What was wrong with Obamacare? Wasn't it meant to be something like universal health care? That's good isn't it? Or do Trump and his oiks want only those able to pay for health care to have health care?

No one should read too much into the results of the Electoral College. Hillary currently leads her opponent by more than 1/3rd of a million votes. If anyone has the mandate of the American people, it is her, even if the vagaries of the American political system have decided to give the presidency to the candidate with the fewer number of votes, for the second time in 16 years.

The last time the Electoral College did this, we ended up with 9/11, the Iraq War, the endless occupation of Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, the renouncement of the international treaty banning torture, The Great Recession, Citizens United, the end of the Equal Rights Amendment, to name just a few. What will go wrong this time, with a man who is less disciplined and less moral than W. Bush? Those visions of nuclear warheads exploding come to mind.

sangetsu: ... Hillary was chosen as their candidate because she was experienced enough to be viable, ... The DNC wanted Elizabeth Warren to be their "real" candidate, ... Unfortunately for the DNC, against all odds (and heavy resistance from the RNC), Trump won in the republican primaries.

I don't know about all that, any real evidence for it or is it opinion?

For one thing, wikileaks emails showed Donald Trump was one of the DNC's preferred Pied Piper candidates for winning the GOP primary, because they thought the Pied Pipers would be easy to beat in the general. They pushed their media toadies to play up Trump and the other Pied Pipers on their list. I think I remember Jeb Bush's campaign complaining at the time about their total inability to get media coverage. Back then I thought it was because NY media wanted to get their local showboat Trump in the game, but after wikileaks it seems more like national media just did anything the HRC campaign asked of them.

"Americans don't think Trump is qualified"

As if community organizer obama or no accomplishments hrc ever was?

I simply don't get it.

No one should read too much into the results of the Electoral College.

These are the only results which count, period. Trump won, Hillary lost, and that is all there is to it. Hillary and the DNC know this, and have not said a single word to contest the results, right? It's over, for good and all.

America is not a direct democracy, the states choose the president. The electoral college system is part of the constitution, because it prevents the populous states from having too much influence in elections. Since the states are nominally independent, the electoral college system gives those states with less people a louder voice in the process.

Another one of these bean-counter pollsters who got it wrong -and still can't figure it out.

America is not a direct democracy, the states choose the president. The electoral college system is part of the constitution, because it prevents the populous states from having too much influence in elections.

If a state has more people, that state should have an equal balance of representation. California is home to around 1/10 of Americans. Why should a single person in California's opinion carry less relevance than a state that has a higher per-capital level of electoral college votes? That makes no sense, and ends up in situations like this, where more Americans wanted one president, but some Americans are more equal than others, and so their votes meant more.

Just reading the headline only instead of its content: It ain't Americans, it's mainly Japan. The author probably lives in Japan and has access to mainly anti-Trump news. Japan has the highest number of Hillary supporters in the world (right after China for other reasons) because of lack of English in order to be informed by American news sources as well. Japan also has the highest numbers of iPhone users in the world. And coincidentally, Apple is a Clinton supporter as well. Just saying, without being an expert. This new president is for the masses and not for the few globalist families that benefit from the current corrupt financial system. The market dropped and continues to drop for a little while as it is staged by the top "Crème de la Crème" whose wealth will drastically diminish throughout the next 4 years. There're so many other points that one can look into if one just keeps an open mind and knows how mass media is fabricated. Have you forgotten 9/11 and 3/11 already? Trump stated to pull companies out of China. Totally understandable and wise choice in my opinion. But again, am not an expert.

I dunno. I don't live in the US, so I don't REALLY understand the full extent of the social and political frustration at play in that country. I've never seen Donald Trump in person, never been to a rally, and all of what I have seen of him is through the lens of a largely left leaning, politically and socially correct media, which portrayed him as a bigoted, misogynistic, egotistic boofhead. So it was easy to laugh at him and his supporters and entirely pooh pooh his chances as one of the great political jokes of our time.

And then he won.

He won the US Presidential election. The biggest race of them all. And dummies don't usually win that race. So perhaps I have to rethink my media fueled assessment of the man. I have clearly underestimated him, as have lots and lots of others as well. He has pulled off something that seemed unthinkable, and in the process completely upended the establishment, the Washington elites, the US political system.

That's no mean feat.

Why should a single person in California's opinion carry less relevance than a state that has a higher per-capital level of electoral college votes?

Why should a relatively few large states have an outsized influence on the fate of all of the states? It seems that too many people do not know America's history and the form of democracy that they have instituted as specified in their Constitution. People living in states with high populations have different interests than those living in rural states. All people need to have a voice in their government and the electoral college provides for that. America is not a pure democracy in which the most votes always wins. It provides protections for minority interests. Another example of this is the fact that all states are given equal representation in one of the two bodies of the national legislature. Like the electoral college it protects the interests of all states so that the nation isn't dominated by a handful of relatively urban states.

The American founders were geniuses in devising a system of government of balanced interests and protections for fundamental rights. America is a republic. I hope they can keep it that way.

Why should a relatively few large states have an outsized influence on the fate of all of the states?

Because they have more people, more of the population.

All the blame goes to the voters. Faced with a candidate they knew was racist, sexist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, and a money-grubbing, tax-evading destroyer of the environment, they voted for him anyway.

Strangerland: Why should a single person in California's opinion carry less relevance than a state that has a higher per-capital level of electoral college votes?

Because 18th century farming colonies' revolution vs. King George, and now because the inelasticity of the Constitution.

There are masses of brain-dead people that got most of their education from reality shows and series ... and they have elected the high school bully into the next season.

"My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." JFK

Now it's : "My fellow apprentices, ask not what you can do for your community, for your country, for the world, for humanity, ask how you can egoistically profit and exploit others....".

ILLEGAL immigration. There is a difference. I am all for legal immigration but not illegal.

Trump explained he was against legal immigration except for blonde gold diggers like his wives and his mother.

It was a vote AGAINST Ms. Clinton.

You mean Granny Clinton and Forrest Trump were the only 2 politicians available in the whole US ? There was nobody fresher ? The primaries of the 2 parties were already a victory of collective insanity.

While I'll respect an opinion opposite my own (and expect the same in return; we can agree to disagree), there was another Presidential candidate who was considered unqualified, and he was given a chance by those of us who did not vote for him.

TWICE.

Re Bill Schneider "Americans don't think Trump is qualified. Why they elected him anyway":

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/10/business-insider-trumps-victory-shattered-democratic-party/

... Many Democrats hypothesized that a stunted primary and Clinton’s maneuvering to consolidate support before the primary allowed a candidate out of touch with a significant portion of the party to clinch the nomination. ...

And, Two: Actually Trump is the Hillary campaign's hand-picked Pied Piper candidate, softballed in the primaries as per the HRC campaign's instructions to the media, after which he turned into a Frankenstein monster that consumed its creator.

Wolfpack: Why should a relatively few large states have an outsized influence on the fate of all of the states?

Strangerland: Because they have more people, more of the population.

Saw an interesting graph re this the other day, "Ratio of Electoral Representation to Population":

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/section_IX.htm / http://www.thirty-thousand.org/graphics/ERR_1990_2.png

The states are ranked left-to-right as WY (3.05), AK, VT, DC, .... PA, FL, NY, TX, CA (1.00), and marked blue or red according to how they voted in the 2000 presidential election (apportionment for the graph was decided in the 1990 census).

At the two endpoints there is a good mix of red and blue, around the middle it's mostly red. Link says:

... The reason for the small states’ advantage in the Electoral College is simple. As noted above, every state has a number of Electoral delegates equal to the size of their House delegation plus two. The smaller the state, the more significant is the counter-proportional effect of this two-seat handicap, as can be seen in the table below. ...

(table): Delaware 1 House seat, 3 electors, Advantage of the 2-Seat Handicap in the Electoral College: 2 / 1 = 200 pct ... California 52 House seats, 54 electors, Advantage = 2 / 52 = 3.84 pct.

The advantage to the smallest state (Delaware) is 200%, while the advantage to the largest state (California) is only 3.84%. ...

The real question is why is were the polls wrong? The answer might or might not supersize you.

Because they have more people, more of the population.

The United States is just that, a collection of states with equal footing under the US Constitution. The electoral college ensures that their rights and concerns are not trampled upon. When the Left has popular support they have no problem trampling the rights of those they disagree with regardless of what the Constitution says. That's rule by mob and America has protections against that.

The United States is just that, a collection of states with equal footing under the US Constitution.

Sounds like a great deal for states that have a small populations - each person is in those states is more American than those in more populous states.

If I was a Californian, I'd be pushing to leave the US. They are lesser Americans, their votes only counts for 1/3 of the vote of WY (Wyoming?).

@MichaelBolten. Well said!

If a state has more people, that state should have an equal balance of representation. California is home to around 1/10 of Americans. Why should a single person in California's opinion carry less relevance than a state that has a higher per-capital level of electoral college votes?

Because all states are supposed to have an equal voice in the federal government. Here is the thing, America is supposed to be an equal country, all states are supposed to be represented equally, particularly in the national elections. California has 10% of the population of America, yet it has only 2 senators, just like Alaska, which is the least populous state. California has more representatives in congress, so they can get more votes there, but those votes must be approved by the senate, in which all states are equally represented, and then the president.

The reason this is so is because democracy is one of the weakest and easily corrupted forms of government. If 51% of the people vote to seize the assets of the other 49%, is that fair? Those who wrote the constitution realize that the majority is not always right, which is why American democracy is limited.

Trump has won, Hillary has conceded, President Obama, the congress, the senate, and the courts recognize Trump as the president-elect. The people rioting in the streets can try to get the constitution changed, which would not do any good in the present circumstances, because these changes would take years to enact, or they can leave (like so many Hillary supporters had threatened to do). But so long as they live in America, they are bound to live under the laws specified in the constitution.

If I was a Californian, I'd be pushing to leave the US. They are lesser Americans, their votes only counts for 1/3 of the vote of WY (Wyoming?).

I am not a Californian but am all for socialist states like California leaving the union. Sounds like a win-win proposition to me.