... For months, Trump campaign aides have said that they wanted to beef up the communications team to assist press secretary Hope Hicks, who has handled the bulk of the work on her own. But some campaign insiders resisted such a move, preferring to stick with the unconventional political strategy -- of utilizing a small, tight-knit campaign team -- that propelled Trump to win the nomination....Getting to normal. That's the goal now. If people — the people who didn't fall for the phase 1 wooing — come to believe that Trump is normal, he's in. Right?
ADDED: Writing this post made me want to go see if Scott Adams has finally gotten around to saying something new, and I see he has and also that it seems apt enough to tag onto this post:
[T]he folks on [Clinton's] side have been viciously effective at branding Trump a crazy racist.AND: Adams tries to figure out what Trump could say to undo the "crazy racist" branding. He pictures Trump saying he loves everyone and believes in the "melting pot."
Nothing else in this election matters....
The facts don’t matter. Facts never matter. What matters is that the “crazy racist” label picked up enough confirmation bias to stick like tar. The Clinton team won the month of June. And unless something changes, Clinton will saunter to an easy victory in November....
I think what Trump is going to try to do — which he started yesterday — is argue that the true meaning of "racist" is what Democrats do, which is to openly talk about everyone — and to frame political appeals — in racial terms. What Trump said yesterday — about Elizabeth Warren — was "She made up her heritage which I think is racist. I think she's a racist actually, because what she did was very racist." The idea is: It's racist to exploit race, and they do that all the time. Democrats can be relied on to cite race continually, and Trump will have a lot of "there you go again" opportunities: They're trying to divide us by race to get political power for themselves. I will never do that.
ALSO: Trump might be able to get people to identify with him. He could say: I've been called a racist so unfairly, and it's what they do to you too if you don't stay in line. They've got people so afraid of being called a racist — completely unfairly — that half of the members of my own party are afraid to support me, they're so afraid they might get called a racist. This fear — this race-based fear, because of their racist name-calling — is terrible for America.
Posts
55 comments:
If defining normal as to mean not being a grifter, a criminal and traitor then yes Trumpy is normal.
Ann Althouse said... If people — the people who didn't fall for the phase 1 wooing — come to believe that Trump is normal, he's in. Right?
No, of course not. What a strange thing to say! Are YOU going to vote for him, Professor? Are any of your colleagues? No, of course not. Not only will they never believe he's normal, they wouldn't vote for him even if they thought he was normal...obviously!
Was ol' Mitt Romney way outside of the mainstream (of political candidates/people running for President)? No. Did he win? No, and it wasn't all that close.
Trump'll lose--people like you will be happy to elect Hillary Clinton (did she mention she'll be the first female president?!) and that'll be that.
She does need some help. Obviously she is new at this. Someone needs to help her understand how the media treats Republicans vs how they treat Democrats.
Example:
Reporter: Why is the sky blue?
Republican: Because of how the sun creates light which bends off our atmosphere and is interpreted as blue by our eyes.
Reporter: Why?
Republican: Because that's what our eyes do. See light in different spectrums which we call color.
Reporter: Why?
Republican: I don't know.
Headline: REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE DOESNT KNOW WHY SKY IS BLUE!
Reporter: Why is the sky blue?
Democrat: Because
Reporter: Thank you so much for your valuable time.
Headline: THE BRILLIANT AMD SUCCINT ANSWER AS TO WHY OUR SKY IS BLUE!
Hope Hicks made the mistake of telling someone Trump meant "All" Muslims in his Muslim ban. Which not only helped our children who call themselves Reporters purposefully not understand his rather clear ban on Muslim Immigration (key word, that), but it also helped them create another meme later that he is changing his mind.
Let's hope the new guy understands the dynamic.
"If people — the people who didn't fall for the phase 1 wooing — come to believe that Trump is normal, he's in."
It's more that, if he doesn't convince them he's normal, he will always be out.
Adams is right. Trump has to change the crazy racist narrative or he might lose. I'm afraid it has already stuck.
Confirmation bias appears to be some sort of adhesive.
I think Trunp has plenty of time to call Hillary on the "racist" label just by asking her to spell it out.
If her response is Muslim immigration ban, Trump is undaunted.
If Trump pivots to not racist and not bigot there is far too much video evidence to say otherwise. Comparison attack ads would highlight that Trump said this and now says this which would also show that he flip flops and lose even more credibility. You can't be a racist one day and not a racist the next day. You are a racist or you are not.
If Trump doesn't pivot, he continues to be framed as the crazy racist and bigot.
Racism and bigotry plus the anti-women, anti-disabled, anti-soldiers, anti-this, anti-that and anti-other and you have an anti-President candidate.
Ah, the tried and true [class] diversity diversion strategy embraced by [class] diversity and abortion rites activists. I think this ploy will fail now that people have discovered their dignity and decided that Joe, Mary, Larry, and Cindy are endangered, and in fact, extinct individuals under the abortion rites and planned parenthood religious doctrine pulled from the dark fringes of civilization's edge.
America, it's not what you do to people that matters, it's what you think about them inside your head. Isn't "racism" basically a thought crime?
EDH,
According to Adams, Hillary Clinton does not have to "spell it out"--the "it" being the charge that Trump is a "crazy racist."
According to Adams, it's all the Unfair People who keep saying it that has caused Trump to be thought of as a "crazy racist." Clinton can just ignore it for the most part, according to this theory, and just let Trump shadowbox and eventually maybe even give a Diversity Speech.
Adams, of course, attributes this labelling of Trump to be the fault of Many People, but notably, Trump himself is not one of them. Trump is a Master Persuader in "Command of the Issues." It's all so unfair, for Trump has never given anyone an actual reason to think he's racist at all!
Speaking of labels. Adams seems to hope that eventually Many Other People will label him as a Political Analyst.
@Unknown:
"If Trump pivots to not racist and not bigot there is far too much video evidence to say otherwise."
Such as?
p.s. what does "racist" mean?
J. Farmer:
No, [class] diversity (e.g. racism) can be both an orientation (i.e. bias) and an expression (i.e. behavior). The former is indeed a thought crime, while the latter is a violation of civil and human rights. However, from the perspective of individual interest and social coherence, it is only the latter, expression, that should be relevant to the conversation. Unfortunately, [class] diversity has a renewed fervor in first-world nations, including in our own society.
Hope being a clueless, neophyte intern notwithstanding, she need more than help. She needs divine intervention.
J Farmer,
Racist, to Democrats, means "people I don't like".
You may learn this if the anonymous poster ever bothers to try and support his assertion. Because he will reference some non racist thing Trump has said, you'll point out its not racist, and then it'll become clear it is racist because our anonymous poster doesn't like Trump.
Just wait. You'll see.
Every time I turn on CNN the topic is something like "How racist is Trump" or "will Trump's misogynic behavior be a liability" or "Why do Nazi's love Trump?". This continues basically 24/7. Providing millions of dollars of free aid to Hillary.
The MSM is so over the top now, I can't imagine a scenario where any Republican could win.
It is "Miller time" - Dennis Miller.
@n.n.
I get that behaviors can be racist (e.g. targeting a particular member of a race that you do not like for assault). But ever notice how relatively rare that is today's society? Even the supposedly egregious examples of racal harassment that pop up from time to time on college campuses are usually found to be hoaxes after further investigation. It seems like anytime I hear someone described as a "racist" it's because of some opinion or feeling that they have expressed. How does one even defend against an accusation of racism?
"Providing millions of dollars of free aid to Hillary."
That's pretty fucking rich, considering how much free air time Trump has received for the last year. He's giving a stump speech? Why, we must cut to live feed immediately!
I think Adams got it right, except for the part of Clinton tarring Trump with the racist moniker. Nope, Trump did that all by himself, got no help at all.
His Curiel rant may go down as one of the most singularly stupid statements by anyone running for office in American history.
Harrogate,
If Hillary wasn't in hiding and refusing media attention, she would be getting the same amount of attention. Access is what they want.
The difference is, our media are children. And as children their bias is clear and obvious. They will give positive coverage to Hillary mixed with protective coverage toward bad news (take today's Benghazi report as a clear example of spin in her favor) and do just the opposite for Trump. Not because he is Trump. But because he chose to run as a Republican.
Wow, all it took for Adams to abandon his "Trump Landslide" prediction was the entirely expected (in that it happens to EVERY GOP nominee) tactic of RACIST?
Ah well, I still enjoyed reading his take. And as the producer of the Only Funny Comic Strip Left Standing, he gets a pass.
Your right, Trump was given all kinds free time so he could win the nomination. That's what the networks wanted for ratings. Now that the race is set, Hillary will get all the special treatment.
Blogger john said...
I think Adams got it right, except for the part of Clinton tarring Trump with the racist moniker. Nope, Trump did that all by himself, got no help at all.
Provide some quotes to support your assertion here.
And please dont waste our time with linking to biased media sources who pretend to quote Trump but are really just spinning for Hillary.
Go straight to the source. Quote Trump. We will wait.
J. Farmer:
My observation is that [class] diversity is an inherited (e.g. genetic) orientation. However, the expression of [class] diversity is limited and only progresses with the introduction of schemes that threaten or marginalize individual dignity, or a failure of societies to reconcile moral and natural imperatives (e.g. pro-choice or selective doctrines).
The only defense against accusations of [class] diversity behavior is through a community of people (e.g. nation) that recognize and embrace individual dignity, or a preponderance of evidence for the same, but we have seen the latter can be overlooked, selectively.
Trump has to switch from Trumpkin bait. He should always refer to Warren as Fauxcahontas, but understand that the vagina voters don't care that she is a lying hypocrite.
Bernie's dupes and others need to hear that these women are multimillionaires, not "of the people," and how they got their money. They know HillBilly is more of the same, but need to be constantly reminded.
Disaffected Republicans need to see a relentless corrective path to counter mediaswine distortions or to be branded as apostates who have opted for elitist rule.
J Farmer and Eric:
No new evidence that Trump is racist.
Blogger samsondale said...
J Farmer and Eric:
No new evidence that Trump is racist.
Well done.
It will be interesting to see what the two nominees do with their VP picks. Pandering didn't help McCain and anti-pandering didn't hurt Bush '43 (2 Texans?!).
The idea is: It's racist to exploit race, and they do that all the time. Democrats can be relied on to cite race continually
Who was it who said:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
So, yes, opposing [class] diversity with a presumption of individual dignity is a legitimate strategy that is embraced by civilized societies. The renewed fervor for [class] diversity is a tale of negative progress with ancient roots.
Bushman
You are so, so right. Only hope is that CNN's low ratings mean it has lost its influence. Brexit result in the UK is some hope.
Trump hires "Lyin' Ted!"'s guy.
Lyin' Ted's guy deletes "Sleazy Donald" tweets.
Hicks gets hope.
(hope of going back to her old job)
About Scott Adams...
When Corey Lewandowski got arrested for an alleged battery of Michelle Fields, Adams wrote that Trump would be credited for his personal loyalty.
And when Trump more recently fired Lewandowski, Adams witlessly wrote about how dynamic Trump was as a leader and manager.
There can be no serious attempt to make any sense out of Scott Adams.
Althouse: Helping Hope Hicks.
Trump: Helping hicks hope?
I hope Trump doesn't do this.
The Dems are the REAL racists is a trope we've seen time and time again, to know discernible effect. It is worse than useless rhetoric for Republicans.
Blacks and Hispanics are happily racist: they advocate policies that promote their own race. They see nothing wrong with this (as neither do Arabs, Asians, et. al.) None of them are going to shift to R because -gasp- someone on the left is racist.
So the only way the Dems are the Real Racist card gets any gravity is if the Republicans can promise yet more (white taxpayers') money funneled their way. No thanks.
By all means though, let's play the cousin card, "The Dems are screwing you to pander to the other guys." Point out that the Democrat support for the Hispanic invasion is wiping out black neighborhoods from Compton to Brooklyn, and maybe you might actually make a dent in the democrat demographic advantage that doesn't amount to telling whites to bend over, drop trou, and think of their wives' children.
Though even this might not work. Muslims praises ISIS while shooting up a gay club, and the pride parade marches with REPUBLICAN HATE KILLS. In which case, let's quit pretending we're a post-racial society and get to the overt tribal politics, burying the GOP forever and replacing it with a whites-only party that advocated for white interests.
Which is why I see Trump as a moderate and a humanitarian: he damn well is compared to what inevitably comes next.
Each successive Scott Adams blog post gets more and more malignant.
Now, "Facts don't matter... facts never matter." And in Adams' fetid mind, a federal judge would be made to feel uncomfortable at his next family gathering if he dared rule in favor of Donald Trump. I imagine that it would be easy to assert such a position as long as facts do not matter. By the way, I am quite certain that the Trump University trial is scheduled as a jury trial, and not a bench trial.
I am now a racist, in that I believe the government should take no notice of skin color or ethnicity of citizens in dealing with them. In that, I have good company in Martin Luther King, whose spinning corpse could power entire states with the outrage he must feel at the loss of his legacy.
I'm actually surprised Adams didn't write this all off as 4 dimensional chess, where Trump is going to win by getting everyone's expectations down and then his master persuasion techniques will convince us all that he really will make America great again.
I think Trump can still win not by "pivoting" to become more of a standard politician (that's a poor fit for him, and besides it wouldn't sell) but if events work in his favor. I was wrong about a terror attack helping him, because he fudged his response to Orlando, but if we have a major financial meltdown this year (similar to 2008) people could get desperate enough. That will of course depend on him reacting on message, and Hillary making big missteps--both are possible though not definite.
Ann,
I much prefer your Trump response to Adams suggested Trump response.
And I think if he follows your advice, or does what you already believe he will do, it will neutralize that line of attack.
This just in from Mary Matlin's better half.
Read it in Ragin' Cajun-ese:
"Friend --
I didn't think it was possible, but it looks like Trump might be pulling a real campaign together.
First, he fired his campaign manager, then he brought on a bunch of new staff, then I'll be damned if he didn't (supposedly) manage to raise $5 million in two days last week. Last Thursday, he even went almost 12 hours without sticking his foot in his stupid mouth -- mostly because he was in an airplane, on his way to putz around a golf course in Scotland for the weekend, but still.
If this is a sign of things to come, then Trump is going to be a tougher opponent than anyone thought, and I'll guaran-damn-tee you that we all better take that seriously.
Hillary's facing a huge FEC deadline on Thursday, and she needs her team, to quote our opponent, to step up "bigly."
So, it's time to pony up and chip in -- we can't let that unreconstructed bully get near the White House:"
^^^ malignant, fetid ...
Chuck, that is.
"His Curiel rant may go down as one of the most singularly stupid statements by anyone running for office in American history."
Only stupid if his intention was to win the election and not try to work out his personal drama in public. From the standpoint of "come up with some lame excuse as to why he might lose a major lawsuit and be exposed as a grafter" then it was a game attempt. It did work on some of his more loyal supporters, who have convinced themselves that Curiel is the real racist and Trump University was a brilliant dream that flew too close to the sun.
Adams and his master persuader schtick have worn thin. He decries facts and reason as worthless then attempts to use them to bolster his argument. He believes he mass-hypnotized his readership over the New Year's holiday. It wasn't just bizarre: it didn't happen.
Reason, emotion, and character still each play a role in persuasion, just as in Aristotle's day. He has begun to develop his reason side more with solid policy talk like today's economics speech. That's good. Emotionally, he can still jack it up on Hillary, Fauxcahontas, and the media hoardes. But he mostly needs to develop the character part, the "more presidential" part.
Can he pull it off? Brexit tells me yes.
Hillary didn't label him a crazy racist without the active support of the media.
Hillary didn't label him a crazy racist without the active support of the media.
Hillary didn't get around to labeling Trump a crazy racist until long after he did it to himself.
It is very depressing to read Ann Althouse these days because, like Glenn Reynolds, she instinctively takes Donald Trump's side. I gave both of them way more credit than I should have.
It will be interesting to read them in the days immediately following Trump's 15-point loss. For a few days. And then, goodbye to my former favorite bloggers. I can't unsee all the pro-Trump rationalizations.
Playing the race card unfairly as a cheap shot -- isn't that one form of racism? Trump almost never talks about or even refers to race. Clinton does so constantly even though our current trade and immigration policies, which she supports, hurt the lowest-skilled and most vulnerable segments of our population most. I think Trump may and probably should play this "race card" in the fall.' Trump change, not chump change' would make a good slogan.
I'm not very impressed with Scott Adams, the dumb-ass has already told us that he is going to vote for Hillary. I think he is showing his ignorance and I realize that is something liberals definitely enjoy doing.
Do we know if Scott Adams predicted that Brexit would fail or did he ever share his Brexit opinion?
Wait, aren't all Republicans racist bigots? Why is this new to Trump? Doesn't make sense. If the Dems/enemedia didn't have quotes from him to "prove" it; they would do as they always do and make things up.
I don't think Trump will lose a lot of voters because Dems and their lapdogs call him racist.
"Adams tries to figure out what Trump could say to undo the "crazy racist" branding. He pictures Trump saying he loves everyone and believes in the "melting pot."
Trump need not worry about that and can take comfort in knowing that all the people who are going to vote for him don't like being called racist either and they for sure aren't as credulous as the bubble boy and his fellow elites assume.
The triumph of Mitt Romney.
" And then, goodbye to my former favorite bloggers."
Now that is something new: a pre--flounce announce.
Post a Comment