June 21, 2016

"But if television ads are persuasive in 2016, would we have GOP nominee Trump? It seems unlikely to me."

"The Clinton team is fighting the war of 2008, using the tools of that era. Trump is dominating social media and gobbling up free TV time. Those are the tools of 2016. Do you know why you didn’t realize TV ads are less effective these days? Because the only people who could tell you that rely on political ads for their profits."

Writes Scott Adams, who also asks if "the mainstream media gave enough attention to the recent Trump assassination attempt?" Try to imagine the media coverage we would be seeing "if a Trump supporter tried the same thing with Clinton."

ADDED: Adams is reacting to all the news about how the Clinton campaign has amassed far more money than the Trump campaign. The main thing to do with all that money is buy ads, and paid-for ads are only one way to convince people to vote for you. Is Adams saying free media is more effective? No. Only that it's been effective for Trump, because he's interesting (and persuasive). Hillary does very little of it, and she especially avoids the kind of free media that could be interesting: press conferences (or anything where she's seriously challenged). You have to suspect that she avoids it because she's not good at it.

165 comments:

Michael K said...

I'm of two minds on media coverage of that event. I worry about copy cats but it is revealing how little coverage and how Trump is even blamed for the violence committed by the left at his rallies.

Paul Zrimsek said...

You wonder how many more people are out there thinking "Finally! A Hitler I don't need a time machine to go kill!"

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

gobbling up free TV time

He does realize the majority of Trump's "free TV time" is now overwhelmingly negative, right?

Nonapod said...

Scott Adams (and many others) seems to be assuming that what worked in the primary will also work in the general election. That remains to be seen, but so far Trump seems to have struggled in the polls against Hillary. Sure, the polls could be worthless, but all the same I hesitate to dismiss them completely. Remember 2012.

Brando said...

First, nice to see we're back on worshipping Scott Adams. Adams has said he can hypnotize anyone, I'm guessing he somehow hypnotized Ann who now sees him as a guru.

Second, pointing out that TV ads don't have the punch they used to is very insightful for three presidential elections ago. But it remains that TV campaigns still hit a lot of viewers, particularly the older crowds that both campaigns are going for. Trump is counting on Fox News while Hillary is counting on everything else.

Third, this gets back to the main point of today's discussion--even if you could win without TV ads, fundraising or ground organization--which of course is possible--it's obvious that you increase your chances with all of those things. Why risk it? This is a lot like Trump's delegate scare, when he freaked out discovering that Ted Cruz was actually picking up delegates while his own team just assumed winning primaries would be enough. Turned out his lead WAS enough, but again--why risk it? If Cruz had kept it closer that would have come back to bit Trump in the ass. The point is it's so UNNECESSARY to neglect these tactics. Maybe Scott Adams has hypnotized you into thinking otherwise, but remember how close some of these swing states have been in recent campaigns.

Finally, "assassination attempt"? Some nut tries to go for an officer's gun? That's not exactly Hinckley. And why give some nut attention? Do we really want copycats?

bgates said...

Democrats would be smart to vigorously denounce any hint of violence against Trump, because his death would solve every problem the Republicans have: Trump's supporters would have a reason to vote for someone else and a reason to hate the Democrats more than the Republicans, and #neverTrump would be able to vote for the Republican nominee. (And who knows, maybe there's someone in America who'd be horrified by an assassination who doesn't already lean right.)

buwaya said...

I wonder if Trump would be permitted to buy the ads that he would like to run.
I also wonder if Trump will, at some point, have his social media venues shut down.
Twitter for instance has been working on ways to limit or wall off their distribution, and testing the waters on denying service entirely.
And if it comes down to it, its entirely thinkable that Trump will get no traditional media coverage at all, no invitations to talk shows, no interviews, no news coverage, should it be decided by TPTB.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

I haven't seen a positive story on TV involving Trump since Cruz surrendered. It's all been constantly, relentlessly, negative. In other words, it's just what I would expect from the MSM.

Hagar said...

I am not on any social media, but I certainly have heard and read a lot about Mr. Trump.
Of course, a lot of that is because the MSM spend a lot of their time patrolling the social media. It is easier than going out to find stories to report on yourself. And it is hot out there too.

Clinton, Inc. relies a lot on expert consultants, who all seem to be fighting the last war, so to speak.

But the natives are restless and perhaps not content to be herded along in the old manner this time around, and it is that that Trump is tapping into.

AprilApple said...

@ Brando The point is it's so UNNECESSARY to neglect these tactics.

Unless the plan is to let people think you want to win, when you don't, and the reality is - you are a stalking horse for Hillary. Trump sunk all those horrible GOPe candidates, trashed them, belittled them... that was the fun part.

Matthew Sablan said...

Bushman: I expected the tone shift no matter who the Republican was. The media found ways to make Mitt Romney sound like a heartless jerk who hates us all and went out of its way to basically ignore all the nice things they said about John McCain.

At this point, in a presidential election year, after someone has gained the Republican nomination, they're essentially going to be swarmed with bad press. It's just reality, and I kind of ignore most of it.

Ignorance is Bliss said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matthew Sablan said...

"Finally, "assassination attempt"? Some nut tries to go for an officer's gun? That's not exactly Hinckley. And why give some nut attention? Do we really want copycats?"

-- We got wall-to-wall coverage for days on end when Palin used targets on her maps of targeted districts. So, it's more that there is a lack of consistency from the media.

Also: The guy may be a nut, but I also find it interesting that THIS violent political person is quickly being demoted as "some nut," while any political violence done by someone on the right is promoted as "a symptom of right wing hate." The point a lot of people are making is that the media has chosen a side, and now they want to even delegitimize attempted murder against Trump as "not serious."

Yeah, he failed. Because he had a stupid plan. It was still attempted murder, and he should face the full consequences of those actions. We've had too many years of people getting to glitter bomb Republicans, rushing Republican stages, there was the guy who managed to throw something into Rand Paul's vehicle -- eventually one of these people isn't going to fail at their violence or going to push it to the next level, and it'll be because the media and authorities never slapped it down.

Owen said...

Media worked hard to wipe out Trump's competition in the primary because they see him as the weakest contender in the general. Now that the electorate has no choice, the media will shell Trump without mercy through November. For free.

I don't know if Trump even cares. He doesn't take the pounding personally, he may like to swat at the incoming rounds like King Kong on the skyscraper.

Only real loser is the Republic.

Brando said...

"Unless the plan is to let people think you want to win, when you don't, and the reality is - you are a stalking horse for Hillary. Trump sunk all those horrible GOPe candidates, trashed them, belittled them... that was the fun part."

My guess is he is running for the fun of running, as he craves attention, and perhaps he is having serious financial troubles and sees this as a way of building back his suffering brand. (It sounds odd because his "brand" is now poison among so many people, but in marketing he doesn't need a majority--just enough people to make money off of). Now, instead of being associated with flimsy products and scams, "Trump" will be associated with his politics and brash style--which a lot of Americans will buy into.

To him, the best scenario would be losing a close race, or being "robbed" of it by Republicans somehow, so he can play the martyr and blame someone else for the loss, then go off and sell his merch.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Brando said...

Finally, "assassination attempt"? Some nut tries to go for an officer's gun? That's not exactly Hinckley.

Of course its not exactly Hinkley, because Hinkley's tactic would not stand a chance today, he would never get anywhere near a party's nominee with a gun in this day and age. This guy came up with a plan on how to get a gun within shooting distance of Trump, and went to great trouble to execute it. His plan failed, and never had any great chance of success. But "assassination attempt"? Hell yes.

AprilApple said...

Trump and his surrogates need to trash Hillary. Remind everyone how corrupt she is non-stop. This is a no-brainer. Where is the vengeance Trump used against his evil horrible lying murderous psychopathic GOPe rivals? I'm not seeing it.

Trump must also counter her ads. Some of her ads are very effective because they showcase Trump, for example, acting like a 12 year old mocking a disabled person in the media. Now we all love it when Trump trashes the media but that was really stupid of him. It was a gift to Hillary. I stand in awe of the many gaff gifts he so generously donates to Hillary and her media.

So far his pounding on Hillary is pretty tepid. I keep hearing it's coming. Just wait. It's going to be amazing. It's going to be great!

*crickets*

Matthew Sablan said...

For example: I'm not a Trump supporter, but I'm aware of the violence inflicted on Trump supporters at various locations. There's been very little done about it, and each Trump event is going to be another chance for someone to hit a fascist, or egg a fascist, or in other ways denigrate someone they think is essentially a non-person.

And what do authorities and the media tell these people? "It's OK; the guy they support says mean things, so it's understandable you're upset. He should check what he says!" Sure, they throw out some minor, "Oh, don't get violent. We have to stop this guy who is Literally Hitler, through any means required. But, don't get violent."

Wink-wink, nudge-nudge.

Brando said...

"-- We got wall-to-wall coverage for days on end when Palin used targets on her maps of targeted districts. So, it's more that there is a lack of consistency from the media."

Well of course the media is inconsistent--but that doesn't mean this was a serious assassination attempt. This is like that nut who fired a rifle at the White House, rather than the women who tried to shoot Gerald Ford.

Matthew Sablan said...

Brando: It was a serious attempt that failed. If the guy were better trained, faster and stronger, he might have over powered someone and gotten shots off. We got lucky the person doing it was stupid. Don't down play violence just because it didn't succeed.

eric said...

Campaign laws are tricky. And the news media sucks.

Adams is onto something with his TV ads thinking, but there is a lot more to it.

I've seen reported lately two things without any significant thought behind it.

Thing 1) A lot of companies intend to boycott the Republican convention.

Thing 2) A late night talk show host has said he won't have Trump as a guest.

Here is my complaint. Where is the discussion about this? I've heard the snark, but why no discussion?

I'm assuming (dangerous I know) that campaign finance laws won't allow businesses to boycott the Republican convention but then do business at the Democrat convention. So, doesn't the boycott equally hurt both camps?

The same goes for TV. You can't ban one candidate but then have on the other candidate. This is called an in kind contribution.

So, because our media is stupid and doesn't care to do any real analysis, it seems as though trump is damaged by these things. And further, damaged by the sheer amount of TV ads Hillary will have.

But, how many people will actually see those ads?

And

Is the shallow, snarky, media really hurting Trump when their reporting is only skin deep?

Don't we as citizens already correct for this, which is why politicians find it so easy to get away with lies? Ok

Dan Hossley said...

We already know that the media are in the tank with Hillary. The NYT's and the WaPo have launched an all out offensive against Trump. OK, we expected that, it happens every four years. The interesting thing is whether Trump can by-pass them and reach undecideds in other ways. Undecideds aren't exactly tuned in to politics that way primary voters are so the channels he used so effectively to get the nomination won't be as useful to him.

He's a good communicator but without access to an audience, those skills will go to waste.

Clayton Hennesey said...

Twitter for instance has been working on ways to limit or wall off their distribution, and testing the waters on denying service entirely.

This could end up being the hidden Easter egg in the 2016 campaign: some social media garden gambles and, instead of simply jerking a Milo Yiannopoulos around, decides to actually pull the trigger and silence Trump entirely, for whatever noble sounding reason.

That's all the focal point a Fox social media wannabe with some deep pocketed friends would need, and the charade of Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. being neutral information distribution nodes would evaporate overnight.

That in itself might be worth more to the republic than a President Trump.

Unknown said...

Free media? Not anymore. They pivoted, Trump didn't.

mccullough said...

The media can't afford to ignore Trump. He's good ratings. They can charge more for beer ads.

YoungHegelian said...

You know what Trump's secret was to getting free press coverage: almost every time he got an invitation to be interviewed he accepted. That's it. Well, that & being a traveling show.

Until Trump, we never quite realized that presidential candidates are invited to every news show there is on a weekly basis, & they routinely turned them down. Trump likes to go on & thrash it out. Other candidates preferred to keep their message much more contained & manicured.

You know who's the worst of 'em for not talking to reporters unless it's a puff piece? Dear ol' Ms Rodham Clinton herself. It'll be interesting to see how these two completely different styles of "getting out the message" play out.

Matthew Sablan said...

"The charade of Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. being neutral information distribution nodes would evaporate overnight."

-- You have educated people who think The Daily Show is real news.

M Jordan said...

The "relentless" (as a commenter above put it) drumbeat of negative coverage of Trump by the media helped push his poll numbers down 5 points or so. Quite remarkable considering the intensity of this negativity. A couple days ago I tallied the headlines on Politico's front page: 10 Trump negative, one Hillary ... positive. I'm not lying.

And he drops a mere 5 points which he is now recovering. I think we're witnessing a sea change. I don't know where this all will end, but Trump has shaken the castle to its foundations. Interesting times indeed.

Kovacs said...

You have to suspect she avoids it because she's not good at it.

That same logic helps explain why Trump avoids specific policy proposals, truthfulness, and common decency.

rhhardin said...

Hillary's chief candidacy-killer at the moment is her blackmailability.

Even if voters give her a pass on what she's suspected of having done, she's open to blackmail from doing other stuff.

It used to be that you couldn't get a security clearance if you were gay, not because gay was bad securitywise but because you were then open to blackmail because of it.

It's the same with cattle futures and murder and other stuff Hillary has done. They're not bad in themselves but she's open to blackmail.

Unknown said...

Scott Adams is full of shit.

Americans have always voted for a President with a modicum of sunshine: Reagan, Bush I, Bill Clinton, Bush II, Obama. Even Nixon smiled almost sincerely.

Trump is anger with a snidey smile.

Trumpsters empathize with Trump's anger. The rest of America doesn't and won't in November. People will always vote for people that make them feel good about the future. Americans love their country and will not give power to someone who is constantly angry and hateful.

Most of America watch TV which is where political ads are run and are effective.

Unknown said...

Trump is persuasive! He persuaded me that his hands are not unusually small, nor is his penis. His display at the debate with the holding up of his big manly hands persuaded me. I'm so impressed by his powers of persuasion. I love Trump.

David said...

"You have to suspect that she avoids it because she's not good at it."

Bill has been saying that about her for decades.

Roy Lofquist said...

Scott Adams has been stealing my stuff again. I've been saying the same things for years on these here intertubes.

Politicians don't really understand communications. They just listen to the consultants who tell them what worked last time.

There are two aspects of communications, the vertical and the horizontal. The ideas come from the vertical and are spread through the horizontal. When the vertical was dominated by three giant TV networks that were all saying the same thing that's what spread. Now that 50% of the people get their news from the internet other ideas are in the mix.

A ton of publicity will buy two weeks of box office. It's word of mouth that makes or breaks a movie.

All the gold in Christendom couldn't sell the Edsel.

boycat said...

Unless the plan is to let people think you want to win, when you don't, and the reality is - you are a stalking horse for Hillary.

Yah, we see that a lot, self-made billionaires with degrees in economics from Wharton lining up to be Hillary stalking horses. That, and tin foil going on special at Krogers.

Kovacs said...

Try to imagine the media coverage we would be seeing "if a Trump supporter tried the same thing with Clinton."

Implying that the assailant in this case is a Clinton supporter--more of that subtle framing that makes Adams such a master persuader. (Of Ann Althouse, at any rate.)

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Maybe Hillary avoids the media because they are not good at it.

I think it is beginning to occur to Scott Adams that Donald Trump is not going to win in a landslide. And that we are not likely to forget that prediction. It will be entertaining to watch him wiggle out of that.

Lyle said...

Left Bank of the Charles,

Or maybe you don't know what is coming. Lol.

Roy Lofquist said...

Left Bank of the Charles,

I grew up on the right bank of the mystic. A bit downscale, eh whot?

Michael K said...

" its entirely thinkable that Trump will get no traditional media coverage at all, no invitations to talk shows, no interviews, no news coverage, should it be decided by TPTB."

No, it's not. Greed will trump (pardon me) ideology every time.

"Quite remarkable considering the intensity of this negativity. A couple days ago I tallied the headlines on Politico's front page: 10 Trump negative, one Hillary ... positive. I'm not lying.

And he drops a mere 5 points which he is now recovering. I think we're witnessing a sea change. I don't know where this all will end, but Trump has shaken the castle to its foundations. Interesting times indeed."

Yes, I wonder if some Poly Sci PhD student is following him around and writing the next big book.

The trouble is that he seems to be making it up as he goes.

The lefty trolls around here think it is going to be a lock for Hillary. That's why you are earning minimum wage.

The serious pros are very worried. I'll bet they have never seen this before.

They are not going on MSNBC to say so but the fascist playbook is getting close to the end and she is essentially tied with him when she should be 25 points ahead, Even Dukakis was that far ahead at this point.

Next come the riots and then the serious assassination attempts.

You know there is a school of thought that the young doctor did not shoot Huey Long, that it was his bodyguards who killed him. I hope those guys around Trump are well vetted.

Better then Mateen, anyway.

Hagar said...

I do not think the Democrats' current leadership gang "make people feel good about the future."

Unknown said...

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/284225-polls-clinton-up-8-points-over-trump-in-florida-tied-in

Hillary Clinton has pulled out to an 8-point lead over Donald Trump in Florida and is even with the businessman in Ohio, according to swing-state polls released Tuesday.

Clinton leads Trump, 47 to 39 percent, in Florida, the largest of the presidential election swing states, while the two candidates take 40 percent each in Ohio, according to Quinnipiac University polling.

Trump has lost support among men in Florida, while Clinton has seen an uptick in support among women. More Democrats in the Sunshine State back Clinton, 93 percent, than Republicans back Trump, 82 percent.

Bob Ellison said...

I'm afraid to admit I'm for Trump.

That's biggest X factor in this election. Any idiot can be for Hillary and say so. It takes a special kind of idiot to be for Trump and afraid to say so. There are lots of them.

Jon Ericson said...

Almost time for the late shift to punch in...

Unknown said...

Adams will be all right regardless -- he has a lucrative day job.

And it's not like people hold pundits to account anyway: James "The Japanese are going to eat our lunch" Fallows still has a job..

CWJ said...

Hmm. Awful lot of "Unknown"s commenting on Althouse of late.

The Cracker Ethnocentrist said...

"People will always vote for people that make them feel good about the future"

Like Hillary? Seriously?

Jim at said...

"People will always vote for people that make them feel good about the future. Americans love their country and will not give power to someone who is constantly angry and hateful."

Yeah. Because that Hillary Clinton is just one, big ball of sunshine, isn't she?

AprilApple said...

Unknown is probably a hillary hack - but that Florida poll is troubling. We can all hope it's wrong, right?

Ann Althouse said...

"Third, this gets back to the main point of today's discussion--even if you could win without TV ads, fundraising or ground organization--which of course is possible--it's obvious that you increase your chances with all of those things. Why risk it?"

Because risk is cool and it drums up interest.

The Cracker Ethnocentrist said...

It's interesting that Althouse is attracting so much attention from Hill's Shills. Wouldn't have thought the little ol' blog was so influential. Apparently someone out there thinks so.

Ann Althouse said...

"Some of her ads are very effective because they showcase Trump, for example, acting like a 12 year old mocking a disabled person in the media."

What is the evidence that showing Trump waving his hands about saying "I don't know" effectively hurts Trump? Maybe it's funny. Maybe it makes Trump seem different and cool and daring. I suspect you'll just insist that the voiceover informs us that he's imitating a disabled person and people reject a person who would do that, but: 1. That assumes a lot (that people accept the voiceover's direction and do in fact feel that imitating a disabled person is terrible), and 2. There's a subliminal effect to showing Trump over and over and you don't really know what that is (it might not connect to the voiceover's manipulation but float free, just making us like someone because of the repetition and because he's a celebrity).

Or maybe you're just saying the ad is effective on you because you hate him. But the question is how the ads change people. That ad sets up Trump to say that Hillary is lying about him. So he can leverage himself off that ad. And people might resist negative advertising. And as Scott Adams points out -- and this is very obvious -- we know how much negative advertising Jeb and others threw at Trump and it didn't work. Why should Hillary's ad campaign work?

Trump is doing this direct stuff, right at the people, and Hillary is relying on big money and big advertising. Trump will mock all of that, and rightly so.

readering said...

It seems tv ads were highly effective in the Republican primaries because they knocked off the candidates they were aimed against. For some reason they largely weren't aimed against Trump. On the Democratic side, Sanders swore off tv ads against Clinton. Well . . . .

Ann Althouse said...

"I wonder if Trump would be permitted to buy the ads that he would like to run."

The FCC has rules on this. A station can't sell to one candidate and not the other. It's complex, and I am not you lawyer, but check it out if you are worried about it.

Mary Beth said...

Hillary does very little of it, and she especially avoids the kind of free media that could be interesting: press conferences (or anything where she's seriously challenged). You have to suspect that she avoids it because she's not good at it.

What is she good at?

whswhs said...

Clinton lost the war of 2008, to a rival one-term senator without her connections.

Unknown said...

"What is the evidence that showing Trump waving his hands about saying "I don't know" effectively hurts Trump? Maybe it's funny. Maybe it makes Trump seem different and cool and daring."

"Maybe it's funny"? Trump was merely trying to be funny, at the expense of a disabled person. Would it be acceptable to mock a disabled law student? Would you keep your job?Of course it hurts him. The majority of Americans don't tolerate this kind of nasty bigotry and schoolyard bully behavior, especially from someone who wants to be POTUS.

Michael K said...

"What is she good at?"

I hear her aim with table lamps is not bad.

As for pistols, Vince Foster could not be reached for his opinion.

Michael K said...

I guess Ann is OK with all the Hillary Unknown trolls.

Maybe click bait.

I do think this blog is pretty well followed by lots of lurkers.

Ann Althouse said...

Something like $67 million has already been spent on anti-Trump ads. It's all already been thrown at him, and he keeps on. What's left to say? He's shown (and built up) his immunity.

Those who think big money will win the election... well, don't you want that not to work? Just as a neutral concept: If you didn't know who had the money, wouldn't you want the "little guy" to win? Bernie relied on that sentiment.

I know. It's absurd to think of the billionaire as the one without the money, but that's one of the many weird tricks Trump has performed for our amusement.

Unknown said...

Except he's not "keeping on". He's declining. As long as he keeps opening his mouth, he will continue his downward spiral. But hey, keep hope alive.

Clyde said...

She avoids press conferences like a witch avoids water, and for the same reason.

Ann Althouse said...

I want readers from all perspectives, and the debate in the comments should be vigorous.

It's generally been the trend here that liberals leave because they get tired and the conservatives are more tenacious for whatever reason.

I would just caution everyone to avoid getting into a "back and forth" with anyone, especially where the other person calls on you by name and seems to want one personal response after another. It's best to answer on the substance.

Scott Adams had a good post yesterday on how to argue with a Hillary fan. I resisted blogging it because it looks bad for me to blog everything he posts, but it was great and I recommend it.

PB said...

Hillary is spending out the wazoo and still has only a minor lead on Trump (and falling). I suspect that Trump is keeping his powder dry in case the Hillary indictment comes through (or doesn't and the FBI goes all Wikileaks on her) and he has to redirect his fire towards another candidate.

Francisco D said...

It has been clear to me that the Hillary! trolls have been out in full force over the past few weeks. It is not just this web-site.

They are not quite as interesting as the usual suspects such as Amanda/Inga, ARM, Cookie, and others.

What happened to Garage Mahal? Did he get a job?

Jon Ericson said...

What happened to Garage Mahal? Did he get a job?
It's possible that he grew up.

Chuck said...

Scott Adams had a preposterous post yesterday on how to "persuade" a Trump-hater. Adams claimed he did it repeatedly, in just minutes. And actually, Adams' own headline was "How to Un-Hypnotize a Rabid Anti-Trumper."

But Adams wrote this jibberish:

Just for fun, I’ve un-hypnotized several rabid anti-Trumpers lately. It takes less than ten minutes, requires nothing but conversation, and you can probably pull it off just by reading how I did it. Here’s how.

Un-Hypnotizing a Rabid Anti-Trumper

When you encounter a rabid anti-Trumper, ask her what are the biggest concerns of a potential Trump presidency.

If “Supreme Court nominee” is one of the top objections, discontinue your persuasion for ethical reasons. This person has put some thought into the decision and has a legitimate opinion that is at least partly based on reason. I don’t recommend changing that person’s mind.



Weeeellllll, okay Scott. Your skilled and trained powers of hypnotic persuasion are
so powerful... right up until you run into someone with just a whiff of principled opposition to Trump?

(I'd submit, by the way, that Trump's really good answer on the Supreme Court question for folks like me is the one most un-Trump thing he's done in the campaign. He went out, consulted some smart and informed conservative lawyers and asked who should go onto a conservative-placating list of potential SCOTUS nominees. Scott Adams overlooked that.)

Do you see what low-grade, moronic tools of "persuasion" Scott Adams is employing? He calls Trump opposition "Rabid." Scott Adams should sit down with me and decide how "rabid" I am. If I am rabid, I presume that means I am persuadable as he claims. If I am a rational, principled conservative, I gather that Scott Adams thinks that people like me aren't worth his time and effort in "hypnotic persuasion." Which is it? On what basis are we to be amazed at Adams'/Trump's powers of hypnotic persuasion?

Althouse, your humoring of Scott Adams is getting less and less credible. He's an amazing waste of time.

Birkel said...

Hillary avoids press conferences for the same reason Dracula avoids the dawn.

Any sunlight kills.

Writ Small said...

People keep talking about how the general election is a different ball game than the primaries, but they never explain why.

The reason it's different is that primary voters are highly persuadable and general election voters are not. That is to say, virtually all voters are open to have their minds changed at one point or another during the primary unless the very person they first lined up with happens to make it all the way to the end. For example, unless you were in the Trump camp on the day he announced, chances are you switched preferences at some point if for no other reason than your guy dropped. Given how polarized we are these days, people are far less likely to go from R to D (or D to R) in the general. Maybe 80% of voters could change their mind during a primary, but probably less than 10% will change their minds through the course of a general election. Persuasion still matters, but mobilizing the faithful through GOTV efforts and advertising becomes comparatively far more important.

It was to Trump's benefit that he cinched his nomination first. He got a nice rebound as a lot of anti-Trumpers got in party line. But Hillary had a similar bounce once she did the same, and the polls have reverted to her favor and will likely continue as the media push the importance of unity on the Democrat side. The nature of the contest has changed from changing minds to inspiring the faithful. Hillary has money, staff, and a compliant media. Trump has a brand new campaign manager and Scott Adams telling us all will be well.

Unknown said...

Scott Walker says delegates should be allowed to vote their conscience at the GOP Convention. Over 400 delegates now signed on (with more everyday) to stop Trump.

Jon Ericson said...

What happened to Garage Mahal? Did he get a job?
Other possibilitiy:
The recent Wisconsin shit-storm about fascist doings of the SWAT teams, and those who ordered them.

Paco Wové said...

"Unknown is probably a hillary hack"

Interestingly enough, there are 3 different ID's posting as "Unknown" on this comment thread, which might account for the somewhat schizophrenic qualities of the comments.

Jon Ericson said...

Interestingly enough, there are 3 different ID's posting as "Unknown" on this comment thread, which might account for the somewhat schizophrenic qualities of the comments.

Ann, see what you can do about these three "unknown"s
like Unknown1, Unknown2, Unknown3.
Yeah I know its too much trouble, You can't do it. or Who cares.

Jon Ericson said...

Maybe shaved balls has joined the "unknowns", however in his (her?) case it will soon become obvious. (snerk)

bagoh20 said...

I think doing things differently could be very effective this time. Hillary having a sycophantic media could work in Trump's favor if him and his people are smart, creative, and continue to think outside the box enough to create something entirely new in Presidential campaigning. It's time, the public is ripe for it, and no one could be more apropos as head of the old stale way of doing things than Hillary: queen of the way things used to be done when they sucked. Nobody wants more of the same today, and that sentiment is stronger than ever across the whole electorate. Go nuts, Trump. Hillary and her people have no ability to get inside a good business man's decision cycle. Just pretend you are a good businessman and tighten that OODA loop like a boa constrictor with it's teeth buried in a thick meaty canckle.

Matthew Sablan said...

"What is the evidence that showing Trump waving his hands about saying "I don't know" effectively hurts Trump?"

-- It doesn't have to hurt Trump. Clinton, like Obama, is going to focus on drumming out her people more than reaching out to new voters. That's why she'll go negative and focus on how scary Trump is, and how she Is Not Trump(TM).

Most of her goals are to scare her supporters and leaners into voting for her. But, also, to scare her non-supporters into NOT voting for her. She won't say it, but every time a Trump supporter gets injured and the odds of them not going out to vote or organize to prevent getting injured again, her odds of winning go up, and so that's why she's OK with a Trump supporter in a wheelchair being assaulted and the police shrugging their shoulders, and her only answer is: "Trump should speak less."

Bruce Hayden said...

The thing that worries me the most with Trump not spending money and the like is that Hillary has built up a substantial ground apparatus. Before Election Day, they will likely register millions of potentially legal voters and then on Election Day, make sure that they get to the polls, maybe a bunch of times, if necessary. And I think that we are seeing some of her paid shills on this blog. Unknown(s) maybe. Miriam I think likely. And several others. I expect it to get worse as we get closer to the election, and that it is already worse in venues with younger, less informed, voters. I think that Trump should be working all these avenues, and apparently is not.

Unknown said...

Hmmm, don't know what to think about this one.

http://therealdeal.com/2016/06/20/jane-doe-files-civil-rape-complaint-against-donald-trump-in-ny-court/

A new lawsuit filed in federal court accuses presidential hopeful Donald Trump of raping a 13-year-old girl at Jeffrey Epstein’s Upper East Side mansion more than 20 years ago.

The woman, who alleges the rape occurred in 1994, filed a civil complaint in New York Federal Court on Monday against the presumptive Republican nominee and Epstein, a notorious ex-hedge funder previously convicted in a prostitution scandal involving minors. Trump allegedly attended at least four of Epstein’s parties at 9 East 71st Street, known as the Wexner Mansion. The plaintiff, like other girls at the house, was lured to the parties with a promise of a modeling career, the lawsuit claims.

Testimony attached to the complaint alleges that a woman — identified only as Tiffany Doe — was hired by Epstein to recruit young girls for his parties. The woman allegedly met the plaintiff at Port Authority Bus Terminal and told her the parties would help connect her to the right people to launch her career.


Matthew Sablan said...

"Hmmm, don't know what to think about this one."

-- In most civilized countries, we assume innocence until it is proven otherwise.

Jon Ericson said...

Comment by Unknown blocked.
Well, that's a damned good thing.

Jon Ericson said...

So ball waxer, have you dug up anything on me yet.?

Jon Ericson said...

Aside from poor punctuation I mean.

Jon Ericson said...

Here it comes,
Here it comes.

Jon Ericson said...

I think he's going to claim a mental health day.

TCom said...

"I think that Trump should be working all these avenues, and apparently is not."

Thing is, OTHER people are working all those avenues. The People. I see people fighting back practically everywhere the official narrative is being pushed.

Trump has started a fire, and he's not the only happy warrior anymore. Not by a long shot. He really is leading a movement.

Jon Ericson said...

Hey, he's got the DNC to do the looking for him.
No response from Debbi "the rabbit done died" Schultz... Yet...

Nichevo said...

Blogger Unknown said...
Hmmm, don't know what to think about this one.

Try "prima facie absurd."

FullMoon said...

Unknown said... [hush]​[hide comment]

bla bla bla .................


Most of America watch TV which is where political ads are run and are effective.


This is exactly correct. Most Americans do not read about this stuff everyday like we do. Most people do not know about Clinton foundation, Benghazi, or even young male Muslim migrants flooding Europe.

Jon Ericson said...

Mushroom Farming!

FullMoon said...

Chuck said...
bla bla bla.....

. Do you see what low-grade, moronic tools of "persuasion" Scott Adams is employing? He calls Trump opposition "Rabid." Scott Adams should sit down with me and decide how "rabid" I am. etc.

Nobody wants to sit with you Chuck. Several weeks ago you wanted to bruise up Greta. Recently you threatened to rearrange Dr. K's grillwork.

You a madman< Chuck. Bad to the bone..B-B-B-Bad to the bone

6/21/16, 6:05 PM

Paul said...

"What happened to Garage Mahal? Did he get a job?
It's possible that he grew up."

No it's not.

Jon Ericson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jon Ericson said...

This one's better anyway.
https://youtu.be/_7VsoxT_FUY

shiloh said...

"Remember 2012."

Yes, when Althouse only posted polls/articles that were positive re: Romney.

2016, Althouse is only posting polls/articles that are positive re: Trump. Or always giving her positive "spin" on the very few negative articles she reluctanyly posts.

Again, all I ask for is consistency ie laughable cruel neutrality!

>

My all-time favorite from the 2012 election ~ election morning. Indeed, frickin' 9:23 AM election morning!!!

Romney trouncing Obama in Ohio

harrogate summed up Althouse ineptitude:

Wow. Are you not at all interested in authenticity at this point? ~ 9:31 AM

The post smacks of shrillness. ~ 9:40 AM


Althouse soooo wanted that info to be true that she lost the capability for logical/deductive reasoning ie 9:23 AM.

>

One of the things I learned very quickly, probably a couple days, at this blog and it's probably true of most political blog owners. They have no qualms re: looking like a fool as they quickly nothing to see here move on to the next topic.

Lance said...

"The main thing to do with all that money is buy ads"

While TV buys are expensive, GOTV also costs. Down-ballot candidates depend on presidential campaigns to handle much of the GOTV expense.

Chuck said...

No, Full Moon. I just don't like bullshit.

If Greta van Sustern thought it was such a nothing incident between Corey Lewandowski and Michelle Fields, I thought I'd make the point that she probably wouldn't like it much if she were treated in precisely the same way as Michelle had been. I still like the idea. I never said anything about "bruising her up," although that is indeed what happened to Michelle Fields. Unless you don't believe Michelle. In which case it isn't much of a threat at all is it?

As for Michael K, he has gotten away far too long with nasty personal attacks on other commenters about their mental health, therapy, medications, etc. Nothing, of course, of substance; just Michael K's own reckless, baseless, aimless trashtalk. If he does it to others, I don't know why anybody would tolerate it. I am not taking it. I don't understand why anybody would.

Jon Ericson said...

Me so lucky.
Don't think I don't get anything out of these blocked comments...
I get the recap... same hilarity.
http://heyjackass.com/
Don't choke on your own... shit.

Kovacs said...

Scott Adams had a good post yesterday on how to argue with a Hillary fan. I resisted blogging it because it looks bad for me to blog everything he posts, but it was great and I recommend it.

I wish you would expand on that. I read it and honestly can't imagine being persuaded by it. The most charitable way to assess it is that Adams is congratulating himself on being able to persuade a person existing in his mind who only holds those narrow, superficial opinions and will make no rational rebuttal to his arguments. And if he thinks those arguments are unimpeachable, he's seriously overestimating their validity. But maybe he's joking.

As a more general question about Adams, when his thesis is "If you don’t study persuasion, Trump’s actions appear random and even dangerous. If you do know how persuasion works, you probably realize Trump is in a league of his own," isn't that kind of a textbook example of confirmation bias? Again, is that the joke?

Jon Ericson said...

I just don't like bullshit.
I am not taking it. I don't understand why anybody would.
https://youtu.be/4xmckWVPRaI
Own it Asshole.

Jon Ericson said...

Wow, no Hairy Brazilian steak house floor cleaners yet, wow.

Jon Ericson said...

No data back from debbi yet,huh?
Keep waiting.
Soooome day your Prince will come...

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

"Trump is dominating social media and gobbling up free TV time. Those are the tools of 2016."

That may or may not follow from what Trump is doing. But, he is definitely benefiting by lending the campaign millions that can be spent on Trump businesses.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/9f7412236962464f9f2c0a8d2696ba25/trumps-campaign-cycles-6-million-trump-companies

BTW, has Scott Adams done a piece that links being persuasive w/ being a con artist? Presumably persuasion can be used or good or bad.

Jon Ericson said...

THIS IS AN OUTRAGE! A PEANUT BUTTER AND JELLY CUSTOMS OFFICER IS TELLING IT LIKE IT IS...
MMM, MMM, MMM.

Unknown said...

http://theweek.com/speedreads/631434/where-all-donald-trumps-campaign-money-going-himself

Donald Trump raised only a fraction of the funds his Democratic counterpart did in May, and he has little cash remaining on hand going into June — just $1.3 million, far below the $3.8 million a month Hillary Clinton spends just to employ her 683 staffers. As the Trump campaign is reportedly paying only 30 on-the-ground operatives nationwide, it might make one wonder where all his money is going.

As just a sample, in May alone Trump spent nearly $350,000 on private jets owned by Trump's TAG Air, over $423,000 on rental and catering at his Mar-a-Lago club, and $4,000 on his son's wine company, The Washington Post reports. All told, Trump ran up over a million dollars just at Trump companies or reimbursing family members' travel expenses last month. For all of May, he spent a total of $6.7 million.

In March, The Daily Beast accused Trump of "paying himself to run for president," noting that no other Republicans in the field — Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, or Ben Carson — spent money at businesses with their name in the title. Jeva Lange.


One of the reasons there is a Vote Your Conscience movement among the GOP delegates. Trump is in trouble in more ways than this, stay tuned.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

"One of the things I learned very quickly, probably a couple days, at this blog and it's probably true of most political blog owners. They have no qualms re: looking like a fool as they quickly nothing to see here move on to the next topic."

Regarding Althosue, I assume that she writes these sort of posts because she needs to feed her traffic numbers. She, as a lawprof (ha), can't possibly be as obtuse as her posts make her seem. And, she's outed herself as a liar in her posts: she even admitted to fabricating in a post about something she pretended to have for dinner.

shiloh said...

PBJ

But she really, really, really wanted her boyfriend Willard Mitt to win. And wasn't about to let reality interfere.

Actually, considering her 95/5 con majority, if she posted negative Trump articles the traffic/posts would probably increase or at least stay the same.

And obviously Trump is what's for dinner daily.

Supply and demand!

Ann Althouse said...

""Maybe it's funny"? Trump was merely trying to be funny, at the expense of a disabled person."

That's not what he says he was doing. He claims he was enacting the man's words in a funny way and didn't know of the disability.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

"But she really, really, really wanted her boyfriend Willard Mitt to win."

I can see that.

OTOH, she didn't do too much to hide the true focus of her affection, the deuce, i.e. the home state PX90 six pack w/ blue eyes.

Jon Ericson said...

Dear Peanut Butter And Jelly Customs officer:
Please stick your manhood into a meat grinder and twist the crank slowly, so as to get the maximum effect.
Affectionately Yours,

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

J.E.

Ok, I did that. Presumably, for some reason?, this gives you satisfaction.

Jon Ericson said...

So where's crank-yanker? (r&b). does it get a day off? Unfair!

Jon Ericson said...

PBandJ_LeDouanier
Well if it worked, there are fewer problems popping up in the future.
Like your spawn.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

J.E.

Thanks for the second sentence at 9:32. Couldn't have figured it out w/o that.

Jon Ericson said...

You are most welcome Peanut Butter And Jelly Customs officer!

Unknown said...

Trump claimed he didn't know of the man's disability? The guy had dealings with Trump in the past. Trump knew full well about the man's disability. How could you possibly believe that Trump didn't know? I cannot believe that you as a law professor are so gullible.

Jon Ericson said...

Oh, Fuck which one is this???

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

"How could you possibly believe that Trump didn't know?"

She never wrote that she believed Trump. I think the sort of smarmy advocacy Althouse uses, w/o technically putting herself on the line, is considered a good thing in lawyer circles.

Jon Ericson said...

Y'Know, I like you. You don't have to wrap that pineapple with barbed wire, but you DO need to shove it up your ass (not sideways) (Whew!)

Unknown said...

"Donald and I were on a first-name basis for years," Kovaleski told the New York Times."

In fact, Kovelski recalled spending the day with Trump in 1989 when the reporter and other journalists flew with the billionaire on the "inaugural voyage" of the Trump Shuttle airline."


http://www.politifact.com/colorado/statements/2016/jun/13/priorities-usa-action/pro-clinton-super-pac-ad-trump-mocked-disabled-r/

"Flying out of La Guardia, we spent a big chunk of the day flying up and down the east coast with Trump chatting with me and the others on the plane," Kovaleski told the Daily News. He added that a furious Trump called the next day and screamed at him" because Kovaleski had reported that the Trump Shuttle took off late on its debut flight after Trump had run many ads saying it would be the most on-time airline in the industry.

The Daily News story looking back at Kovaleski’s history with Trump included an archived image of his bylined Trump Shuttle story ("Wings of Don") with a photograph of Trump cutting a ceremonial ribbon.

In addition, Trump spoke familiarly about Kovelski at the rally, calling him a "nice reporter." He also described him as "the poor guy" and indicated he knew Kovaleski’s appearance ("you gotta see this guy") before launching into his imitation.

Our ruling

In an ad from Priorities USA Action, parents of a disabled child said Trump "mocked" a disabled reporter at a campaign rally. Trump did mimic the man’s oddly angled right hand while flailing his arms and shouting in a strange voice. Disabled people and advocates said the candidate clearly was mocking him.

Trump’s excuses for his comments are at odds with the evidence. Trump said he didn’t remember the man so he couldn’t know he was handicapped. But Kovaleski said he and Trump knew each other well because the reporter regularly covered the New York businessman for years. Archived reports support that.

Trump also talked about the reporter with familiarity as a "nice reporter" and a "poor guy" who "you gotta see."

Trump’s denials that he did not mock -- or even know -- the disabled reporter don’t add up. We rate the ad’s claim True.

Michael K said...

"where the other person calls on you by name and seems to want one personal response after another. It's best to answer on the substance. "

Fair enough. I will avoid mentioning chuck's mental health although I do worry.

I have been called so many nasty names over the years. It used to be lefty blogs but lately a few Trump haters seem to have adopted the same tactics.

Jon Ericson said...

Aw sorry, all you small trolls, Ima just waiting for Wax-Smoove to dox me. so y'all can keep on doing what you do best ;)

Jon Ericson said...

I like my name and I like people using it.
You may finally find me and then....
You may be discomfited :) :) :)

Jon Ericson said...

Small trolls are here, but where is the huge pus-filled leader of the pack :) :) :)

Unknown said...

Hate to break it to you bearded small fry, no one gives a shit who you are.

Jon Ericson said...

Hate to break it to you CUNT, no one gives a flying fuck about you either, SUGARTITS.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

"Hate to break it to you bearded small fry, no one gives a shit who you are."

Big trolls spend time thinking about genital mutilation. Everybody knows that.

Jon Ericson said...

Please consider just changing gender, you might have a chance after surgery, in the entertainment field.
I understand that's Big, Big, Big this season... or was last season. Or you could just pretend and wear a skirt.

Jon Ericson said...

I see Master Rthymn And Balls is not here tonight to regale us with his(?) (un)usual blarney, so we must be thankful for that.

AprilApple said...

Trump is a Clinton Stooge.

Perhaps you or he can convince me he still wants to win - but his not having or needing money is just another brick.

Jon Ericson said...

Yeah, whatever.

Ben Dover said...

Trump is forced to use titter et social media because democrat owned media refuse to give him the time of day.
In hacked democrat docs, democrats state they "will utilize reporters to drive a message" but do so "with no fingerprints" on the process so that the public believes the messages are coming from the reporters and not the campaign."

gadfly said...

Hillary needs to borrow a page from John Kennedy as to how to best use excess campaign cash:

On April 27, 1960 when John F. Kennedy arrived in West Virginia's McDowell County to campaign for President - bearing monetary gifts for the coal miners who lived there. West Virginians who voted in that election (including me for the first time, but not in McDowell County) knew that Senator Kennedy was openly paying for votes. Earlier, he had paid $35,000 to bring the Logan County Hubert Humphrey supporters over to his side and then he "joked" about it in Welch.

JFK was an hour late to one rally at the McDowell County Courthouse, having lingered at a coal mine where he sat against a rail car and talked with miners between shifts. When he arrived in Welch, the crowd was so big — including shrieking teenage girls — that he had his sound truck pull outside the parking garage, despite a gathering windstorm. He hopped on top, reached in his suit pocket and pulled out what he said was a telegram from his father, tycoon Joseph P. Kennedy, who had been accused of trying to buy his son the election.

“Don’t buy one more vote than necessary,” Kennedy read. “Damned if I’m going to pay for a landslide.” The candidate smiled; the crowd roared.

If Hillary likes the idea, she should try the experiment in places other than coal country.

Writ Small said...

That's not what he says he was doing. He claims he was enacting the man's words in a funny way and didn't know of the disability.

This is an old story and most people have made up their minds on it, but some things to consider.

Has Trump ever mocked a person without a disability by jerking his body around and holding his hand at an unusual angle flopping it about? Trump afterwards claimed not to know the reporter, but Kovaleski said he had interviewed Trump many times and was personally convinced Trump was indeed imitating him. Furthermore, prior to Trump's flailing about, he said this: ". . . written by a nice reporter. Now the poor guy, you got to see this guy. . . " If Trump really didn't know the reporter, who is in fact known as a decent person, why would Trump un-sarcastically call him nice? If Trump didn't know Kovaleski had a disability, why would he refer to him as "the poor guy?" If Trump was only mocking what the reporter had written, why would Trump have said "you got to see this guy?"

If that isn't enough, newly unemployed Cory Lewandowski later tried the same tactic by falsely tweeting this: "@MichelleFields you are totally delusional. I never touched you. As a matter of fact, I have never even met you."

Video later proved that Lewandowski lied - both about touching Fields and having met her. Trump decided being caught lying about a reporter was not a firing offense. Curious, huh?

cyrus83 said...

Politics is about salesmanship. Trump, whatever else he may be, is a good salesman. And the thing about salesmen is that even though they may be among the most disliked in town (see used-car salesmen), they continue to make their sales, even to a public that seems to be on to them. So long as Trump is reaching the public at large with his sales pitch, it doesn't matter how much he spends, particularly if a lack of self-awareness causes the media and Hillary to effectively broadcast his message for him in the act of criticizing it.

That's not to say that money isn't something, but it has to be spent effectively to work. Money didn't work for any of Trump's Republican opponents who had more of it, particularly Jeb Bush. It remains to be seen how wisely Hillary will spend her money. If she spends most of it on consultants, cronies, and advertising, it may well turn out to be the most expensive losing campaign thus far. GOTV is probably where the most bang for the buck will occur, and this is possibly an area in which Trump's frugality may really cost him in November.

Darrell said...

Trump is bad. But you know who is God-awful? Felony Clinton.

Brando said...

"People keep talking about how the general election is a different ball game than the primaries, but they never explain why."

It's different in a number of important ways:

1) Completely different electorate. Primaries feature a more conservative, Republican base which is hardly representative of the general electorate, where the left significantly outnumbers the right, and the middle isn't as easily moved by partisan attacks.

2) Much larger electorate to reach, and larger numbers who may not be on social media or following the details of the race.

3) A single nationwide election day rather than a rolling group of primaries in smaller venues.

4) 1-3 debates, which will be one on one and feature more candidate time per debate, rather than two dozen less-viewed debates with more limited time among several candidates.

5) Instead of many opponents trying to get attention, often attacking one another, but also careful not to alienate each other's voters, a two-person contest where the attacks are focused in one direction and no one cares about attacking the other's core supporters.

Brando said...

"Third, this gets back to the main point of today's discussion--even if you could win without TV ads, fundraising or ground organization--which of course is possible--it's obvious that you increase your chances with all of those things. Why risk it?

Because risk is cool and it drums up interest."

Ann, I'm wondering if you're serious or joking around here, but on the slight chance you're serious I'll entertain this. Let's say Trump has decided "sure, I can raise funds and establish a ground game, because of course I want to win this thing and pull out all the stops, but maybe by forgetting that stuff and just doing Twitter and call-ins on TV people will see me as a great risk taker and think I'm cool and be interested in my campaign because there are a lot of people who don't know who I am and this will drum up interest."

Is that the theory you're going with? That Trump is going to try the first presidential general election campaign in modern history with no ground game or paid ads, because it'll pay off more by drumming up interest and making him look cool?

MPH said...

as @smod2016 tweeted:

-Trump fired Corey
Scott Adams: Genius!
-He's nearly broke
SA: A true master persuader
-He just shot a dog on CNN
SA: He's playing 4D chess!

Michael K said...

1-3 debates, which will be one on one and feature more candidate time per debate, rather than two dozen less-viewed debates with more limited time among several candidates.

I would not be terribly surprised if Hillary tried to avoid debates. Debates are not that traditional and she could make all sorts of arguments. It depends on where the polls are.

I doubt she could pull it off but she stiffed Bernie.

Brando said...

"I would not be terribly surprised if Hillary tried to avoid debates. Debates are not that traditional and she could make all sorts of arguments. It depends on where the polls are."

That's my thought too--she's not very good at debates, and if her poll numbers are high enough she may decide to not risk it, maybe coming up with some excuse like the two campaigns couldn't agree on the rules (plausible enough that it wouldn't be an obvious lie). Then again, she may be convinced by some staffer that with adequate preparation she could make Trump look foolish in a debate.

Personally, I'd love to see a debate like that because it has the most hope for entertainment.

Brando said...

"Brando: It was a serious attempt that failed. If the guy were better trained, faster and stronger, he might have over powered someone and gotten shots off. We got lucky the person doing it was stupid. Don't down play violence just because it didn't succeed."

Fair enough.

shiloh said...

"It depends on where the polls are.":

But, but, but MK you have mentioned in several previous posts that Trump will win a landslide victory so you should be fairly certain where the polls will be at the time of the debates.

Indeed, Trump should be leading right now if "someone" has been predicting a landslide!

Brando said...

"-He just shot a dog on CNN
SA: He's playing 4D chess!"

I mocked a lot of Obama supporters who were guilty of this--particularly Andrew Sullivan who did this the most. Anything Obama said or did was "winning" and it was our own fault for not being sophisticated to recognize his genius.

Clearly, Obama fans didn't have the monopoly on this. Adams and now his protégé Althouse seem to be viewing everything Trump does through a lens of "success". It's the same mentality that left a string of disappointed customers and investors in his wake, and now threatens to leave conservatives and Republicans wondering how the hell this all happened.

Enjoy the campaign, at least. It'll be worth a few more laughs.

Michael K said...

"you have mentioned in several previous posts that Trump will win a landslide victory "

I assume you would be happy to point out where I predicted a "landslide." I don't know what will happen and it is not impossible but I don't recall "predicting " it.

Matthew Sablan said...

"I would not be terribly surprised if Hillary tried to avoid debates. Debates are not that traditional and she could make all sorts of arguments."

-- There is no reason for her to avoid debates, given the odds that the moderators will be solidly in her corner and anti-Trump.

AprilApple said...

Exactly. Hillary will be given the questions beforehand. She will be rehearsed and calm. Trump, who isn't very articulate, will look ridiculous. As planned.

shiloh said...

"she may be convinced by some staffer that with adequate preparation she could make Trump look foolish in a debate."

Trump appears to be doing this quite nicely all by himself. I would posit the Cleveland convention will be a lot more "entertaining" than the debates.

When your opponent is imploding get the hell out of the way. The last two mos. tax returns will be mentioned ad nauseam ie what are you hiding?

Matthew Sablan said...

"The last two mos. tax returns will be mentioned ad nauseam ie what are you hiding?"

-- Stop campaigning on hate and actually think it through beyond "What would make me happiest." These arguments are just more fuel to the "Hate Trump and his supporters" band wagon that is leading to people on the left physically attacking Trump supporters. I don't like Trump; I'm not a Trump supporter. But, we really need the left to step back from stoking more anti-Trump hate, especially with stupid talking points.

Consider that Clinton is "hiding" her Wall Street speech transcripts, her emails, her unwillingness to engage with the press, etc., etc. People on Internet boards will be encouraged to make the argument so that we can have our next 2-minute hate on Trump.

Clinton's campaign is counting on people like you looking like fools to advance this weak argument. You'll succeed in making people who dislike/hate Trump dislike/hate him more, but a good chunk of the electorate, when they hear "Candidate who is hiding things" don't think "Trump's tax returns."

Brando said...

"-- There is no reason for her to avoid debates, given the odds that the moderators will be solidly in her corner and anti-Trump."

Even with that, there is still the "Trump could literally say or do anything" factor. Maybe Clinton will think she can anticipate anything and have a canned response ready, but would she risk it if she can get away with not debating? I'm not sure when a final commitment has to be made on whether to debate, but if she's ahead by ten points at that time, I'm guessing she finds a way to bail.

Matthew Sablan said...

Expanding in case this is unclear:

The "hiding" thing isn't actually about candidates not being forthcoming with the public. After all, consider that Clinton is "hiding" her Wall Street speech transcripts, her emails, her unwillingness to engage with the press, etc., etc. No one making this argument online actually *cares* about what Clinton is hiding/doing. It is all about riling people on the Internet up for the next 2-minute hate on Trump, even if it is incoherent, irrational and on closer examination shouldn't REALLY be a reason to hate Trump.

Michael K said...

" there is still the "Trump could literally say or do anything" factor."

Imagine Romney saying something like, "Candy, who gave you that transcript and why are you intervening in a presidential debate ?"

I watched Rudy Giuliani do this to a rude moderator on CNN. He said, "How many people am I debating here ?"

Of course, Rudy was a trial lawyer and quicker on his feet but Romney was a disaster.

I could see Trump coming back on such a note and making her, and her enablers in the media, look pretty weak or corrupt.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Of course, Rudy was a trial lawyer and quicker on his feet but Romney was a disaster."

-- I firmly believe that Romney went in knowing he was right, and then when the moderator told him he was wrong, he was just too naive. He probably never thought that there'd be open collaboration like that between Obama and the debate moderator.

He probably thought: "Wait, maybe I was wrong. I guess I need to talk to my research team to make sure we don't make mistakes like that again."

Because Romney, first and foremost, made the mistake of assuming that the people he was against were as on the up-and-up as he was.

shiloh said...

"grackle said...

Trump has been so successful that it’s beginning to be boring. I almost wish Trump would lose a primary or two in order to see how he would react under adverse circumstances.

Prediction time:

Soon I believe various Republican politicians will begin to realize that Trump has long coattails and will hasten to buy a ticket on the Trump Train. Winning all the Super Tuesday states should do it.

After that should come the realization that Trump will also attract a sizeable portion of disaffected Democrat voters, especially after The Bern is shown to be a hot house flower unable to flourish outside of the East coast college enclaves of excited lefty campus activists. Sanders will be finished off by Hillary come the “SEC” primary but will continue his campaign until the Democrat convention, where he will be given a prominent spot on the convention stage in an attempt to win back his supporters.

Following that Trump will demolish Hillary during the general election – which will be a Trump landslide.

About Trump’s tax returns: He’ll release them after Super Tuesday, if they are not leaked by the IRS beforehand. They’ll be picked apart by various MSM types attempting to bring Trump down – but to no avail.

2/26/16, 2:39 PM

Michael K said...

"I'm pretty much with grackle."

2/26/16, 3:48 PM

>

Michael K said...

Chuck, I think we are heading into uncharted territory. I will not be surprised if there is a Trump landslide.

4/30/16, 2:04 PM

Brando said...

"The "hiding" thing isn't actually about candidates not being forthcoming with the public. After all, consider that Clinton is "hiding" her Wall Street speech transcripts, her emails, her unwillingness to engage with the press, etc., etc. No one making this argument online actually *cares* about what Clinton is hiding/doing."

As someone who suspects the worst from both candidates, I assume that what they're "hiding" is bad enough that it's worth it to them to let people speculate. Clinton's Goldman transcripts probably have her saying something embarrassingly fawning along the lines of "you'll have an advocate in the White House for the finance industry" or something like that. Trump probably has had serious losses in recent years, and is afraid his tax returns will make people question his net worth (I don't think he cares what they say about his taxes, as he brags that he pays as little as possible. Unless he pays no taxes because he's been losing money).

"Imagine Romney saying something like, "Candy, who gave you that transcript and why are you intervening in a presidential debate ?""

Romney wasn't quick on his feet, and in the moment probably figured he wanted to look graceful and that he had made his point. Still, a good shot at the moderator would have made me (and I assume a lot of others who already would have voted for Romney) happy. I don't know that it would have swayed anyone deciding between the candidates.

shiloh said...

Speaking of hate ...

Shorter Matthew Sablan

But, but, but Hillary, Hillary, Hillary

Indeed, always a convincing argument as he actually think(s) it through beyond "What would make me happiest."

tim in vermont said...

Shilo is shilling for a non stop recidivist evidence hider, shilling to have a rapist put back in the West Wing with an office and interns, a non stop bribe taker since her days in Little Rock when she took money from the states biggest polluters, and remember, this is when Democrats still had a choice to put up somebody else, no Hillary is Shill-os first choice!


Not to mention the author of the refugee crisis in Europe, which may break up the EU, by her ham-fisted and and ill-advised interventions in Syria and Libya. When she said that she voted for the Iraq war "with conviction" she was not kidding, as her later policies showed as she repeated the folly twice over.

All of these things made her the best Democrat available, right Shilo? The hack clearly shows that the primary was baked before the first vote was cast, yet you get right on board like a good little toadie!

shiloh said...

"Because Romney, first and foremost, made the mistake of assuming that the people he was against were as on the up-and-up as he was."

Too funny as you're sayin' Willard Mitt was in wayyy over his head. I agree. Running for president ain't beanbag ie Willie Horton/Swift boaters, etc. etc.

Indeed, he should have had a sit down w/Roger Ailes and studied the history of Lee Atwater.

They didn't play nice ~ oh the humanity!

Todd said...

I am not a political expert but I would suggest that Trump or one of the PACs supporting him run a bunch of ads reminding the BurnieBros how the Dems screwed over their guy and what a Wall Street machine the DNC and Hillary are. I would also highlight all the "big evil corporations" and governments that donated to her foundation.

If you could turn those folks either to Trump or to say home, that could make a huuuuuuge difference, no?

Todd said...

That should be "stay" not "say".

Dang no edit ability!

tim in vermont said...

Right, Candy Crowly lied as debate moderator, and Shiloh has no problem with lying to advance his politics, because if you are shilling for Hillary, lying, or as the DNC calls it, "muddying the waters" around Hillary's ethics is going to be required early and often to get that piece of human garbage elected.

Mom2Es said...

Do people under the age of 50 see regular television ads anymore? I realize those are the people who vote regularly, but still. I could count on one hand the number of network t.v. political ads I've been exposed to this cycle because most of my t.v. time is spent on streaming services or imports I've recorded off PBS (Take a Viking cruise! Wear Ralph Lauren! Read this list of people who donated to make this show possible!). Unless you're buying ad space on Hulu, you're unlikely to reach my household with a television ad.

Michael K said...

I will not be surprised if there is a Trump landslide.

I will not be but that is not a prediction. The other text is from someone else. I may have quoted it, though.

Nice nonsequitar,

Michael K said...

Running for president ain't beanbag ie Willie Horton/Swift boaters, etc. etc.

Oh, I agree that Romney was far too nice. On the other hand, let me know when you reach $200 million.

shiloh said...

Grackle says:

"Following that Trump will demolish Hillary during the general election – which will be a Trump landslide."

MK say:

"I'm pretty much with grackle."

You an iota of plausible deniability depending on your definition of pretty much.

Non sequitur my ass!

>

And yes, mittens was all about $$$ much like Trump, but he'd give that $200 million to charity if he could change 2012 election results. Hell, he had his "presidential" web site ready to go on election nite, bless his little heart.

ok, ok, he'd probably keep the 200 million, as again, he's all about $$$.

EMD said...

One may conflate the money of media buys with media effectiveness. Trump will go ahead and make "TV spots" but may not run them on TV unless they are seen as effective to do so, which would require large outlays of cash for TV time. Media today is so fractured that it's hard to corner the market on time and attention.

I am curious to see if Hillary's TV-centric tactics work in 2016.