When Is It Fair To Blame GOP Voters For Carson and Trump?

n-TRUMP-CARSON-large570.jpg

A question for everyone here, but I’m especially interested in what conservatives (or even conservatives relative to the “Alas” norm) think:

At what point, assuming they continue to be the leading candidates,1 is it fair to take Donald Trump’s and Ben Carson’s expressed views, as a general snapshot of what Republican base voters favor?

I haven’t bothered writing about what either Trump or Carson say, because I’ve been assuming that they’re flash-in-the-pan candidates, oddball artifacts of the nomination process rather than an actual expression of what the GOP in general favors. Or maybe just GOP base voters having a bit of fun before settling for someone bland and plausibly electable.

But that’s how I felt months ago. Trump started rising in June. It’s been a while.

But probably he’ll still fizzle out to nothing in the end. Right?

But if Trump fails to fizzle out, at what point does it become fair to take Trump and Carson as representing what a large portion of GOP voters want?

(And for the reverse question: I think it’s now fair to take Clinton’s policies in general as a reasonable snapshot of what centrist Democratic base voters want, and Sander’s policies in general as a reasonable snapshot of what progressive Democrats want.)

  1. Recent polls show that only Trump and Carson are standing out in poll after poll, although certainly Rubio, Fiorina, and Bush are contenders. Unless there’s a major shake-up in the race – and maybe there will be, it’s still early! – everyone else seems like an also-ran at best []
This entry posted in Elections and politics. Bookmark the permalink. 

28 Responses to When Is It Fair To Blame GOP Voters For Carson and Trump?

  1. 1
    Veri says:

    Lots of people are for Trump for reasons other than his specific issues.

    – They are fed up with weaselly politicians who will not say anything directly
    – They find it refreshing that he is not beholden to people who give him money
    – Regardless of his issues, he will shake things up, and probably in a good direction (“good” being defined by what some/many republicans want)

  2. 2
    Wesley Fenza says:

    Eh, I think it’s less fair to take Clinton and Sanders as representative. They’re really the only two running, so D voters don’t really have a lot of choices. Trump and Carson are the standouts in a very crowded field. Republican voters have a ton of options, and they’re choosing the candidate(s) they like best.

  3. 3
    Susan says:

    I’m really not sure Amp and I don’t think anyone is.

    Let’s take Trump. There are maybe 5 sane people (not including him) who agree with his views. So what is the rest of this all about?

    I believe that the “average voter” is in revolt, in general. It was supposed to be Bush v. Clinton (again), the fix was in, the money on both sides (which is very often the same people!) supported them because whatever else they say neither one of them is going to upset the status quo.

    The status quo is that the .5% of the population which is currently getting all the money will continue to do so, at the expense of the rest of us. And that nothing whatever will be allowed to get in the way of this.

    Would Trump fix this? Can Sanders? I don’t know. But I think most people all over the political spectrum are tired of the same old same old. My opinion at least.

  4. 4
    MJJ says:

    “Blame” away.

    I’m not saying the GOP base agrees entirely with Trump on every issue, but yes, it is clear that most feel that we need to restrict immigration and to deport people who are here illegally. This shouldn’t seem odd when you consider that referenda that are generally anti-illegal immigration (Prop. 187, vetoing drivers’ licenses in Oregon, cutting off welfare in Montana) always wins at the ballot box and are usually only defeated by judges.

    Remember that at a time of high unemployment and of high non-employment (i.e. low workforce participation rates) the U.S. Senate voted by more than 2 for 1 to vastly increase legal immigration while essentially amnestying (that is, giving legal status to) everyone who is currently here illegally.

    It is obvious that among the political class, the only acceptable debate on immigration is how much to increase it by and whether to increase legal immigration, excuse illegal immigration, or a combination of both. It’s also equally obvious that this is not driven by public opinion (Oregon voters vetoed drivers’ licenses for those here illegally by nearly 2 to 1, after the legislature approved them by almost 7 to 1 in the house and by almost 3 to 1 in the Senate) , but by rich campaign donors who are essentially bribing politicians to make policies that they can exploit for more cheap labor, drive up home prices, or a thousand other things they can find ways to make money off of.

    It’s not amazing that Trump is doing so well. What’s amazing is how few other candidates want to try to tap into the immigration issue on the restrictionist side.

  5. 5
    MJJ says:

    Also, I think it is meaningful that the Trump surge happened shortly after the GOP gave Obama Trade Promotion Authority, something that the base obviously did not want.

    I think Trump’s “make American strong” message resonates because so many policies seem predicated almost on doing what is worst for America. We have the highest corporate tax rates and collect them in such a way as to make it more profitable for many companies to be outside the United States. However, tariffs to collect revenue from such companies – why that violates free trade dogma! That’s protectionism! (A word that is somehow supposed to make one hide his head in shame).

    In any case, the point is that our entire trade policy seems to be built on driving our companies into other countries. It’s not so much the taxes and regulation, but that we are practically forbidden from taking actions to stop companies from simply relocating to less fastidious places.

    It just seems that our government and both parties are determined to make certain that our competitors have all of the advantages. Which is why someone coming out and saying that out loud is so refreshing. That’s part of, I think, what Trump is tapping into, the sense that in economics the U.S. government’s policies ought to be based at least partly on what is in the U.S. interest rather than entirely on what most closely adheres to a particular economic dogma.

  6. 6
    Kate says:

    I, as most of you know, am very liberal. When I asked about the appeal of Trump, my (not conservative, non-American) partner asked – “Well, who in the Republican field would you prefer to Trump?” All I could come up with is Kasich??? Maybe??? Who in the Republican field is unambiguously more appealing than Trump? He is for keeping social security. He speaks forcefully about taking care of veterans. I also, honestly, don’t think he’d do anything stupid in the foreign policy arena, like bombing Iran – which is more than I can say for most of the GOP hopefuls. It’s sad. But, rhetoric aside, who in the GOP field is much better than Trump on substance?

  7. 7
    Jeffrey Gandee says:

    But if Trump fails to fizzle out, at what point does it become fair to take Trump and Carson as representing what a large portion of GOP voters want?

    Immediately. A large portion of GOP voters do want Trump, and I think it is perfectly fair to hold each and every one of them accountable for this.

    I think some people are reading your questions as “at what point is it fair to say that the views of Trump and Carson represent the views of the Republican core,” (I read it this way at first) and at that point I would say never, because it is my understanding that American voters are surprisingly unaware of their own candidates positions. I bet that the average Trump voter would score a “C” or lower on a multiple choice test that measured knowedge of all Trump’s platform positions.

    Voter preferences baffle me, but I agree with much of what Susan said concerning Trump. I think my parents are Trump supporters (I’ll talk politics with them, but it hurts too much to discus the republican field with them this year, so I won’t) and they definitely are “in revolt.” I live in DC, and my parents seem to think that this city stands for all that is wrong in the USA, and that includes the career politicians who work here. My gut feeling is that people are responding to Trump’s lack of political experience. The man just doesn’t sound like a politician up there, and that works in an environment where people are increasingly tired of politicians.

  8. 8
    LTL FTC says:

    Trump may be a positive in the long term. For years, Republicans have been primary-ing each other on increasingly thin charges of heterodoxy from the hard-right party line. The fall of Republicans who used to be considered hard right, like Cantor and Boehner, made it look like nobody could last long in the GOP if they carried even the slightest whiff of compromise or ideological moderation. That should be good for Ted Cruz and Scott Walker, right?

    The primary season to this point challenges this. Trump does not have an unbroken record of supporting conservative causes, and he certainly doesn’t do a good job repeating the shibboleths of the social conservatives.

    He’s succeeding because he’s an outsider who projects self-confidence and rejects the self-abnegation middle-class whites think is being foisted upon them. He sells grand-gesture “national greatness” to people who remember the space race. He’ll talk about an issue a lot of people care about but that leadership wants to downplay in order to win votes.

    If you think Tea Partiers care most about ideological purity, it’s a lost cause. An appeal based on convincing people to abandon first principles would never work. Thus the usual liberal election-loss coda of “whelp, non-whites will be in the majority in a few decades, so just you wait!”

    But if you think these same people care more about posture and attitude, there’s hope. Just find a telegenic personality who can make left populism seem as brash and exhilarating as right populism. Hillary isn’t very populist and Bernie isn’t very telegenic, so that will take some doing.

    It’s Carson I really don’t get. My current theory is that many Americans have trouble sleeping and Ben Carson is a natural, non-habit-forming sedative. If you try not to process the words and just listen to him talk, you’ll be under in no time.

  9. 9
    AcademicLurker says:

    I think a big part of Trump’s visceral appeal is that he openly displays the contempt for the other candidates that many people feel but don’t have a public platform to express.

  10. 10
    MJJ says:

    He’ll talk about an issue a lot of people care about but that leadership wants to downplay in order to win votes.

    I think this is where you are missing the point. Leadership isn’t downplaying issues in order to win votes. Leadership is downplaying issues in order to keep the donors happy so they will keep giving.

    Do you think the leadership pushed Trade Promotion Authority through in order to reach out to some large segment of voters who are passionate about free trade? Do you think that the leadership is completely unwilling to do anything about the most egregious immigration issues because they actually think the American people support sanctuary cities or want a vast expansion of H1B visas?

    There are plenty of issues where the GOP could win a large number of votes by taking a supposedly controversial position that is actually very popular, but the leadership will set their feet in the ground and absolutely refuse to do anything about it because there are a lot of rich people who are giving them money who support the unpopular side.

    That’s why Trump’s “I can’t be bought” is such a big rallying cry. Everyone feels that all of the other candidates are bought – at least the viable ones.

  11. 11
    Harlequin says:

    At what point, assuming they continue to be the leading candidates,1 is it fair to take Donald Trump’s and Ben Carson’s expressed views, as a general snapshot of what Republican base voters favor?

    It may never be, because there are so many candidates, splitting support for people with very similar policy positions. As a toy model, if the base voters were 80% establishment Republicans and 20% fans of anti-immigrant non-politicians, but there were 8 indistinguishable establishment Republican candidates and one Donald Trump, the base would be establishment Republicans but Trump might still win the nomination.

    Trump’s winning because he has a plurality, but it’s far from a majority; picking this just because it was the top of the Google search for me, this poll found him losing in lots of head-to-head matches with individual candidates even as he wins the first-choice vote, indicating that most people who don’t like Trump best don’t really have him in their top two or three, either. 50% favorable view, but 38% negative view–those are really very close. (Carson’s net favorability is really high, though, and he’s the second choice for lots of people. If you want a candidate who’s supported by a broad swathe of the base right now, it’s Carson.) That being said, if Trump holds onto this lead through the first round of primaries/caucuses, he might still end up with the nomination on numbers. We’ll see.

    Of course, it’s hard to tell with the Democrats too, because of the opposite problem–too few nominees. What you’d really want, to probe the opinions of the base, would be a sort of maximally diverse set of candidates with little overlap in positions.

    MJJ:

    the leadership will set their feet in the ground and absolutely refuse to do anything about it because there are a lot of rich people who are giving them money who support the unpopular side.

    That’s why Trump’s “I can’t be bought” is such a big rallying cry. Everyone feels that all of the other candidates are bought – at least the viable ones.

    I admit I find this sentiment very strange. Of course Trump doesn’t need to be bought–if he wasn’t running, he’d be one of the buyers. He’s an even purer avatar of that position than the most pandering-friendly of the career politicians are.

  12. 12
    desipis says:

    Ampersand:

    At what point, assuming they continue to be the leading candidates, is it fair to take Donald Trump’s and Ben Carson’s expressed views, as a general snapshot of what Republican base voters favor?

    I’m not sure it ever is, at least not with presidential candidates.

    I’m from one of those countries that has a parliamentary democracy, however some of the more recent elections have been described as “presidential”. The reason is that the campaigns and the opinion polls indicated that the elections were being decided based on the personalities of the respective leaders, and not on the party policy platforms.

    I haven’t seen anything that convinces me this isn’t a general property of presidential elections where the focus is very much on the individuals. People will either vote entirely based on, or be significantly influenced, by subconscious assessments of the way the candidates talk, look, walk, etc. From what I’ve seen of this election Trump’s candidacy is especially based on his personality and not his policies.

    Harlequin:

    What you’d really want, to probe the opinions of the base, would be a sort of maximally diverse set of candidates with little overlap in positions.

    Wouldn’t you get a clearer picture of policy preferences by looking at political surveys which also include questions on party affiliation or voting expectations?

  13. 13
    Harlequin says:

    Well, yes–I just meant if you were trying to figure it out from the candidates, which was I thought where Amp’s question was going.

  14. 14
    h says:

    The popularity of Trump and Carson tells us more about what many conservatives don’t value rather than what they do value. What many don’t seem to care about is substance. What they do care about is posturing, personality, branding–i.e., entertainment. Just as FoxNews got people to watch the ‘news’ by hiring pretty people to referee shouting matches while branding itself as outside of the establishment looking in, these candidates–both wealthy and far removed from the unwashed masses–have branded themselves as political outsiders who will fight for the little guy. And Trump at least has entertainment value.

    A worthwhile question is whether their popularity is a symptom of idiocy or cynicism. Do people really believe these guys will fight for the values of their trailerpark fanbase, or have people given up on finding a presidential candidate who believes his own BS and are simply hoping for one who might turn the presidency into a reality TV show?

  15. 15
    MJJ says:

    I admit I find this sentiment very strange. Of course Trump doesn’t need to be bought–if he wasn’t running, he’d be one of the buyers. He’s an even purer avatar of that position than the most pandering-friendly of the career politicians are

    If Trumps’ positions were those of the donor class, that would be true. If, say, one of the Koch Brothers ran it would not make a difference to say they could not be bought. But the point is that Trump has taken positions that the base likes and that most of the donors dislike.

    It’s like Perot, he is taking a populist position, in Trump’s case at some cost, and he is basically saying “no one else can force me to change my mind.” Maybe he can’t be trusted, but the other candidates aren’t even pretending to take the positions the base wants, so “maybe he will do what I want” beats “I know he’ll screw me over.”

  16. 16
    MJJ says:

    The popularity of Trump and Carson tells us more about what many conservatives don’t value rather than what they do value. What many don’t seem to care about is substance. What they do care about is posturing, personality, branding–i.e., entertainment.

    Of course we care about substance. That’s what conservative anger against the “establishment” candidates is about – we disagree with the substance of their positions.

    Conservatives who support Trump do so because on issues such as trade and immigration, he has taken positions that we like better than what most of the other candidates have. He is seen largely as “lacking substance” because he takes positions that the establishment have deemed unacceptable and thus should not be taken seriously. “Substance” to the media generally means that he has a detailed explanation for why we have to accept the status quo.

    In any case, the issue for any candidate is “is he more likely to do things I agree with than the others.” I think most of the people here would rather have a candidate who had no specific agenda on gay rights but who constantly talked a out how much he liked gay people than a candidate with a specific, detailed agenda on how to get sodomy laws reinstated.

  17. 17
    Repack Rider says:

    Everyone above is overthinking the reason that Trump is popular with a plurality of a minority, which is not EXACTLY “popularity” in the accepted sense of the word. Most of the country hates him.

    The simple explanation is this: FOX News and the Republican Party turned the nominating process into a game show remarkably similar to “Survivor” or “The Apprentice,” and then they invited a game show professional to play against a bunch of newbies. This is the freakin’ World Series, and there is exactly one major leaguer on the field. It doesn’t even matter that he’s a marginal major leaguer, he made The Show, and everyone else is playing A-level minor league ball.

  18. 18
    Veri says:

    I kind of find the title itself offensive here.

    Blame GOP voters for what? That they have a different political opinion than Ampersand? How much more arrogant can you get?

    1. With regard to immigration, the Left should simply present its real objective. If that is open borders, there won’t be any “illegals” because all people should be able to come over the border, and you want to do an end-run around current US law, own it and argue it.

    Trump has the bizarre notion that US law (decided among politicians of many different stripes) should be enforced.

    2. If you think “your side” is the be-all-and-end-all, you are kind of stupid. A few decades ago in the 1980s, I read that Marilyn vos Savant, supposedly the “smartest woman” in the US, wrote in her column that blind adherence to a political party is stupid. I was really offended by that, because I thought the republican party had all the answers. Now, I get it. I can’t bear the idiotic sh!t from the religious right. I can’t bear the crap defending rich people who may not have gotten their money through pure Lutheran work effort. I wonder about the power of corporations. And lots of other stuff.

    Same on the left. If you think that democrats and the left are all-knowing, you are stupid. As one example, the paradigm that “things just happen to people, so they have to be protected by welfare” is a bit false. It’s a mix between: (1) Things just happen to people and (2) People have some responsibility for doing what they can, and acting responsibly and mitigating damage. So I see the woman in Ampersand’s last cartoon, asking why she shouldn’t get more money for herself from taxpayers, and I wonder: Why can’t you get a job? Ampersand seemingly NEVER concerns himself with that, as a true leftist. And that is not reality.

  19. 19
    kate says:

    Help, I’m lost in Veri’s field of straw men!!!!

  20. 20
    closetpuritan says:

    Yup, that’s a lot of assumptions, Veri.

    One that jumped out at me: are you talking about the cartoon most recently posted on the blog, the one with the woman contemplating abortion and the Compassionate Conservative rushing to convince her not to? What makes you think she doesn’t have a job? All she said was that she couldn’t afford a kid right now; we don’t know whether she has a job, how well she’s paid, or what her other financial obligations and assets are.

  21. 21
    Kate says:

    Response to Veri @18 on immigration
    Most people on the left I know think do think that current levels of legal immigration are unrealistic. Still, to characterize us as not thinking the law should be enforced is a straw man. We think that the most effective way to enforce immigration law is to go after employers who hire people illegally, which almost all Republicans and centrist Democrats are against. I think that, until we do that, walls, border patrols and deportations of individuals following their own best economic interests will have little effect.
    Border security has already become so much more intense that people are dying in the deserts by the hundreds trying to cross from Mexico each year. Because of this, once people get here, they stay longer. Whereas before, they came in for seasonal work and then went back home each year, the increased difficulty of the crossing has effectively ended that practice. So, paradoxically, increased border security has had the effect of encouraging people working here illegally to stay longer and put down roots here.
    We live in a free society where law abiding citizens aren’t required to randomly show i.d. (nor should we be, and I think my friends on the right are equally adamant about that – if not more so). But, this means that it is pretty easy for otherwise law-abiding people to stay here illegally once they’re in – again, unless you go after their employers.

  22. 22
    Kate says:

    Response to Veri @18 on “Why can’t you get a job?”
    The most common reasons I’ve come across are:
    Lack of reliable transportation between neighbourhoods where I can afford to live and neighbourhoods where there are jobs.
    I have a health condition, which means that I need medication to stay healthy enough to work. If I get a job, I will lose my medicare and access to that medication. Then, I won’t be able to work.
    I can’t find affordable childcare.
    I think that most people on the left are in favour of providing solutions to these problems (eg. funding public transport, expanding medicare, expanding head start and other early childhood education programs), so people will be more empowered to find work. I have not seen similar solutions suggested by my friends on the right.

  23. 23
    Ampersand says:

    Kate:

    Border security has already become so much more intense that people are dying in the deserts by the hundreds trying to cross from Mexico each year. Because of this, once people get here, they stay longer. Whereas before, they came in for seasonal work and then went back home each year, the increased difficulty of the crossing has effectively ended that practice. So, paradoxically, increased border security has had the effect of encouraging people working here illegally to stay longer and put down roots here.

    Yes, this.

    I really should try to think of a cartoon about this.

    As far as open borders go, I favor open borders in theory. But in practice, I don’t think a sudden change to open borders is a good idea, because of the law of unintended consequences. What I’d favor, if it were up to me (and it’s not, what with me not being dictator and all), is a gradual loosening of borders, with a long-term goal of open borders decades from now, but with the possibility of changing the plan in response to new data.

  24. 24
    Evan Þ says:

    @Kate #22 – I’ve never heard anything from the left about increasing scrutiny of employers who hire people without legal status. Is this happening and I’m not hearing about it? Who’s proposing this, and how would it be done?

  25. 25
    Pesho says:

    Well, you would not hear from any serious politician. Many reasons for it:
    – it would upset politician-buying employers.
    – it would have a serious, negative effect on many workers, who may have voting friends and family.
    – it would raise questions for about the H type visa programs, which is how powerful corporations get cheap labor. Why break the law when you can buy yourself a more favorable one.
    – it would embarrass a lot of celebrities.

    But apart from the snark, the logistics are terrible. It is relatively easy to obtain papers that will fool an employer into employing someone, even after a relatively diligent check is made. Who can catch such violations? Well, the ones best suited for it are the Federal agencies which perform the verification for the employers. So are you going to punish them? Or are you going to make the employers pay for improving those agencies capabilities, as you will have to do if you require every employer to make much more rigorous checks?

    There is no Federal ID. Social Security cards are a joke. Mine was issued by MIT in 1992, and says in big letters “Not valid for employment without I.N.S. authorization” In addition to my full time job, I get paid for about 20 programming projects every year. No one has asked to see my social security card, ever. For six years, I was getting paid, taxes were withheld and sent to the I.R.S, and then the State of California decided to audit me, did not find anything wrong, and the auditor told me that I had been overpaying by a lot by not registering a business… Which I still have not, because I take those projects for fun.

    The point is, the Feds still have not audited me, those who employ me do not care whether I am allowed to work, and they have certainly not checked with an government agency that no longer exists. As long as I give them a social security number that matches my driver license, everyone is happy.

    If I were NOT to authorized to work, it would take me about two thousands to get a fake driver license from one of the States that give you a ratty piece of cardboard, with a name that matches someone else’s. And no one would ever catch me, unless you turn the US into a police state.

    Can we please not have that? I did not enjoy it even when I was the Law, which I very much would not be here.

    Any solution to the US immigration problems (if there are any problems!) will either inconvenience too many people, or make unpopular some people who thrive by being popular, or cost too much to implement. As long as the US is on top of the heap, people will want to live here.

    Borders can be closed, but not without a huge ethical cost. Until those in charge are willing to kill people for the crime of trying to immigrate, and admit to it, people will be coming in. It gives certain types of disadvantaged individuals something on which to blame their problems, and certain types of politicians a way to court votes.

    So, a lot will be said, solutions will be advanced to make people feel good about themselves, and nothing will change – immigrants will be coming in, and their kids will be bitching about new immigrants.

    —-

    The last is not just snark. I have heard complaints about immigration from kids whose parents came to the US by buying lottery winners from a mill, i.e. a place that sends applications from fictitious individuals, and then helps customers to get papers matching the winning entries.

  26. 26
    MJJ says:

    Most people on the left I know think do think that current levels of legal immigration are unrealistic. Still, to characterize us as not thinking the law should be enforced is a straw man. We think that the most effective way to enforce immigration law is to go after employers who hire people illegally, which almost all Republicans and centrist Democrats are against.

    Almost all Republicans who are truly for reducing immigration (Jeff Sessions, Steve King) are for penalizing employers. The Republicans who are against penalizing employers are generally those who are those who are also pro-“comprehensive immigration reform” i.e. amnesty.

    Also, every major conservative immigration restriction group (FAIR, CIS, NumbersUSA) is for penalizing employers. And Arizona’s much-hated SB1070 did penalize employers, and it was attacked by Democrats for doing so. So it’s not really fair to claim that conservatives want to punish the migrants and not the employers, because generally the desire to punish employers correlates with the desire to punish illegal immigrants.

    Finally, let’s remember that the Obama administration is penalizing employers for trying NOT to hire illegal aliens. Which makes it seem that at least some of this is more about subverting immigration laws for its own sake rather than about trying not to penalize corporations.

    Border security has already become so much more intense that people are dying in the deserts by the hundreds trying to cross from Mexico each year.

    Under Obama, border security is extremely lax. Border patrol agents are told that if they are attacked by migrants they should flee. Returns are way down. Deportations are at their lowest level in ten years. Claims that Obama has huge levels of deportations come from counting only one type of deportation (removals) which the Obama administration has funneled most of its deportations into.

    Moreover, enforcement is not only border security, it is interior enforcement. If we had more interior enforcement along with more border security, it would discourage people from coming here and staying.

    Arguably, the lack of border security and interior enforcement (along with promises of eventual amnesty) is what is killing these migrants. If they knew they would not be able to get into the US, or that they would not be able to stay here once they got here, they would not attempt the dangerous crossing in the first place.

  27. 27
    RonF says:

    At what point, assuming they continue to be the leading candidates,1 is it fair to take Donald Trump’s and Ben Carson’s expressed views, as a general snapshot of what Republican base voters favor?

    First, it depends on which views you’re talking about. I don’t think any candidate’s supporters favor all of their candidate’s expressed views – or even know what they are.

    Second – even together these two together do not poll over 50%, so by definition they shouldn’t be considered as representative of a majority of GOP voters (or poll respondents, anyway).

  28. 28
    RonF says:

    h @ 14:

    Do people really believe these guys will fight for the values of their trailerpark fanbase ….

    So, it’s O.K. to use stereotypes and derogatory commentary about living conditions, income, etc. – if you’re talking about conservatives. Check!