Fascinating article on Trump

Fascinating article on Trump (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Phydeaux -> Fascinating article on Trump (4/21/2016 12:12:47 AM)
So sure, I've written before on how trump has spent less in toto on this campaign than hillary is spending every 3 weeks. Or to quote: quote: So far this campaign season, anti-Donald Trump forces have spent close to $70 million on ads attacking the GOP front-runner—more than triple what Trump has spent on his entire campaign. Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/anti-trump-ads-backfire-213819#ixzz46RUx4Lwh But interesting results - attack ads are actually helping him. Quoting again quote: nd we found that Cruz’s anti-Trump ad backfires. It doesn’t hurt Donald J. Trump. It helps him. Our clinical message trial showed Cruz’s anti-Trump actually made voters more likely to vote for Trump, boosting his support by 3 percentage points overall. That’s not a very large increase for the sample as a whole (and not statistically significant). But for blue-collar voters, the attack ad increased support for Trump by 18 percentage points; and it increased support among blue-collar men by more than 33 percentage points. (36 percent of the blue-collar men who watched the coke ad, for example, said they would vote for Trump—compared with 69 percent of the blue collar men who watched the anti-Trump ad.) And in both subgroups, incidentally, the anti-Trump ad caused actually support for Ted Cruz to fall. It seems that anti-trump adds are getting people mad. It is an interesting, unrecognized issue for the clinton campaign - one I wonder if they will pick up on. Heretofor here playbook has strenuously been to negatively define her opponents. Two other takeaways - you can't ask voters how they will respond. And another data point that money doesn't necessarily buy elections.

Nnanji -> RE: Fascinating article on Trump (4/21/2016 9:09:22 AM)
I'd have to disagree with you on one point. In the Repug party Trump is the anti-money doesn't buy elections. The system that gave the party Dole, Bush, McCain, and Romney is still expecting to spend lots of money to elect their guy. But, it seems the voter, at least the Repug voters, aren't having anything to do with it. Well, for the establishment there is still Hillary. As much as dems talk about money in politics they don't seem to want to change it with actions as the repugs are doing.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Fascinating article on Trump (4/21/2016 10:17:34 AM)
quote: So sure, I've written before on how trump has spent less in toto on this campaign than hillary is spending every 3 weeks. He doesn't need to spend much as the media covers every word he says in ridiculous depth. Turn on CNN sometime, it is non-stop 24 hours Trump coverage. quote: It seems that anti-trump adds are getting people mad. It is an interesting, unrecognized issue for the clinton campaign - one I wonder if they will pick up on. Heretofor here playbook has strenuously been to negatively define her opponents. It certainly seems to make his core supporters angry, but the real question is does he have enough core supporters to win in a general election.

Lucylastic -> RE: Fascinating article on Trump (4/21/2016 10:35:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: So sure, I've written before on how trump has spent less in toto on this campaign than hillary is spending every 3 weeks. He doesn't need to spend much as the media covers every word he says in ridiculous depth. Turn on CNN sometime, it is non-stop 24 hours Trump coverage. quote: It seems that anti-trump adds are getting people mad. It is an interesting, unrecognized issue for the clinton campaign - one I wonder if they will pick up on. Heretofor here playbook has strenuously been to negatively define her opponents. It certainly seems to make his core supporters angry, but the real question is does he have enough core supporters to win in a general election. I started seeing different "headlines" cropping up that trump is now sounding"presidential" Not just from fox, cnn, msnbc, abc(?) tons of different stations, and Im incredulous, he has been polite for what three days and now he is "presidential" Im avoiding it like the plague. I cant take the hilarity.

Phydeaux -> RE: Fascinating article on Trump (4/21/2016 11:02:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: So sure, I've written before on how trump has spent less in toto on this campaign than hillary is spending every 3 weeks. He doesn't need to spend much as the media covers every word he says in ridiculous depth. Turn on CNN sometime, it is non-stop 24 hours Trump coverage. quote: It seems that anti-trump adds are getting people mad. It is an interesting, unrecognized issue for the clinton campaign - one I wonder if they will pick up on. Heretofor here playbook has strenuously been to negatively define her opponents. It certainly seems to make his core supporters angry, but the real question is does he have enough core supporters to win in a general election. No, I think you misrepresent the real question. Core supporters are irrelevent to the discussion at hand really, which isn't really the whether he will win - but rather that negative ads seem not to be working as previously. This does promise to be a fascinating election - two candiates with massive unfavoralbe numbers. Hillary has what seems to be the advantage, as trumps unfavorables are higher. But even tho negatives are held to be more important and less pliable than favorables - I think thats illusion. In a usual election year, media coverage doesn't shift to being Republican neutral until october. And while trump is getting a lot of coverage - 74% is negative. It calls into question the adage - no such thing as bad publicity. To your point about core supporters - its not core supporters that wil decide the election. Trump will have his core, hillary will have hers. The question is the great unwashed middle. Trump stupidly burned a lot of bridges with women - but I think those bridges are reparable. That said women, especially 40+ will break for hillary. Clinton has a lot of baggage as well - looming indictment, hundreds of scandels, lack of accomplishment - and she's a terrible campaigner. Trump is a lot smarter campaigner - I predict he will start to repair the bridges with women - he has enough time to pivot to the center. So the next question is - how will the hardcore left respond when she pivots to the center.... Either way - not a core voter question.

Phydeaux -> RE: Fascinating article on Trump (4/21/2016 11:03:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: So sure, I've written before on how trump has spent less in toto on this campaign than hillary is spending every 3 weeks. He doesn't need to spend much as the media covers every word he says in ridiculous depth. Turn on CNN sometime, it is non-stop 24 hours Trump coverage. quote: It seems that anti-trump adds are getting people mad. It is an interesting, unrecognized issue for the clinton campaign - one I wonder if they will pick up on. Heretofor here playbook has strenuously been to negatively define her opponents. It certainly seems to make his core supporters angry, but the real question is does he have enough core supporters to win in a general election. I started seeing different "headlines" cropping up that trump is now sounding"presidential" Not just from fox, cnn, msnbc, abc(?) tons of different stations, and Im incredulous, he has been polite for what three days and now he is "presidential" Im avoiding it like the plague. I cant take the hilarity. Two weeks. Thats how the media game is played. Most times republicans play it very very badly. You're now facing a candidate that plays it pretty ok.

Lucylastic -> RE: Fascinating article on Trump (4/21/2016 11:10:00 AM)
playing it yeah very true

Nnanji -> RE: Fascinating article on Trump (4/21/2016 11:29:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic playing it yeah very true Lol

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Fascinating article on Trump (4/21/2016 12:28:56 PM)
quote: No, I think you misrepresent the real question. Core supporters are irrelevent to the discussion at hand really, which isn't really the whether he will win - but rather that negative ads seem not to be working as previously. Ah, OK, gotcha. Sorry. And yes it does seem that to an extent they are having the opposite effect from the desired one, but again, who exactly is getting mad? Trump supporters or previously undecided voters? I think it is mostly the former. Also, the relative lack of negative campaigning on the Democratic side might have an effect as well, a lot of Republican voters might well be looking at both campaigns and be thinking to themselves "Well those fuckers can avoid the muck racking, why can't we?" And a 3rd factor is likely the stupidity of the negative campaigns themselves, they are focusing on petty stupid shit, like Trump's dumb tweets rather than his dumb policies. Like the whole 9/11 7/11 thing, I mean like really, who gives a fuck, so the guy had a slip of the tongue during a fucking campaign speech. So fucking what? Or the non-story about one plane not being properly registered. How the fuck is that his fault, some underling screwed up, and somehow this is indicative of his worth as a candidate? No, what is indicative of his unsuitability is his platform, the dumb ass shit he plans to do.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Fascinating article on Trump (4/21/2016 12:32:09 PM)
quote: So the next question is - how will the hardcore left respond when she pivots to the center.... Likely by voting for her, as by that point it will be a her or "disaster", so they will hold their nose and vote for her to avoid a Republican getting elected.

epiphiny43 -> RE: Fascinating article on Trump (4/21/2016 12:34:52 PM)
Your point on his dumb-ass policies is well taken, and needs more attention, but these aren't as easy to criticize to a populace largely ignorant of modern economics, international political realities, or a whole lot else. What the constant business slight-of-hand stuff that ended in the airplane with no registration shows is a basic desire to finesse any system for personal benefit, and HUGELY IMPORTANT, an inability to properly delegate tasks to competent people, probably the single most important skill the POTUS needs to have. Anyone who had the misfortune to watch the clown doing his show on handling subordinates knows how much he enjoys abusing the help and indulging his impulses. Not how I'd run the DoD . . .

Nnanji -> RE: Fascinating article on Trump (4/21/2016 12:38:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: No, I think you misrepresent the real question. Core supporters are irrelevent to the discussion at hand really, which isn't really the whether he will win - but rather that negative ads seem not to be working as previously. Ah, OK, gotcha. Sorry. And yes it does seem that to an extent they are having the opposite effect from the desired one, but again, who exactly is getting mad? Trump supporters or previously undecided voters? I think it is mostly the former. Also, the relative lack of negative campaigning on the Democratic side might have an effect as well, a lot of Republican voters might well be looking at both campaigns and be thinking to themselves "Well those fuckers can avoid the muck racking, why can't we?" And a 3rd factor is likely the stupidity of the negative campaigns themselves, they are focusing on petty stupid shit, like Trump's dumb tweets rather than his dumb policies. Like the whole 9/11 7/11 thing, I mean like really, who gives a fuck, so the guy had a slip of the tongue during a fucking campaign speech. So fucking what? Or the non-story about one plane not being properly registered. How the fuck is that his fault, some underling screwed up, and somehow this is indicative of his worth as a candidate? No, what is indicative of his unsuitability is his platform, the dumb ass shit he plans to do. I'm not saying I'll vote for trump unless he is running against Hill or Bern, but I'd like to point out a lot of conservatives have been very disgruntled with the Repugs for a couple of decades. There is a certain satisfaction in sticking a finger in the eye of the establishment by rooting for trump instead of another rino. As to whether or not trump can perform in the office, I refer you to Obama who had much less experience. At least trump has been working the system, bribing dems and Repugs both, for years. So I wouldn't count out grass root Repug support in any election.

thompsonx -> RE: Fascinating article on Trump (4/21/2016 1:30:36 PM)
ORIGINAL: Nnanji I'm not saying I'll vote for trump unless he is running against Hill or Bern, Who else might he run against? Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Fascinating article on Trump (4/21/2016 1:36:50 PM)
quote: a lot of conservatives have been very disgruntled with the Repugs for a couple of decades. There is a certain satisfaction in sticking a finger in the eye of the establishment by rooting for trump instead of another rino. See, there's a problem, the so-called RINOs are not Republicans in name only, they are Republicans to the core, the problem is that the Republican party is not really conservative, that is just the demographic they are currently chasing. Remember, they started out on the complete opposite side of the spectrum, they were once the dangerous fringe espousing radical change. The advice I give conservatives who are unhappy with the Republican party is the same I give to those on the left who are unhappy with the Democratic p[arty. Get involved at the local level, where the people who run the party are chosen, make sure that the precinct captains and local chairman has the views you prefer. It is that level that change has to start, just look at the Tea Party before they got co-opted, just keep doing that, get involved at the very local level and most importantly STAY involved, not just in election years, but on an ongoing basis. How many of you are even aware of how and when your local party apparatus is chosen? The process is open to any member of the party, you get your say then as well, but so few bother to speak up at that point, they are all content to wait to be presented with candidates they don't really want. Well it seems to me that the answer is obvious, get involved earlier, when the candidates are being chosen, get involved when the guys who make the rules are being chosen, that's how you change the game, by rewriting the rules, and it is at the very bottom that you do that. Take Cruz for example, while he lost a bunch of primaries and got less delegates, his team got involved in the process where the actual delegates themselves (i.e. who was going to actually be a delegate), and managed to get a good number who, while committed to vote for Trump on the 1st ballot, are more inclined to vote for Cruz on the 2nd ballot. How many of you got involved in that process, I mean yeah you voted in your primary, but did you follow up to try ensure that the right people were actually chosen as the delegate?

Phydeaux -> RE: Fascinating article on Trump (4/21/2016 2:37:04 PM)
Lol. I'm not a republican.. I'm not eligible.

Phydeaux -> RE: Fascinating article on Trump (4/21/2016 2:38:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 Your point on his dumb-ass policies is well taken, and needs more attention, but these aren't as easy to criticize to a populace largely ignorant of modern economics, international political realities, or a whole lot else. What the constant business slight-of-hand stuff that ended in the airplane with no registration shows is a basic desire to finesse any system for personal benefit, and HUGELY IMPORTANT, an inability to properly delegate tasks to competent people, probably the single most important skill the POTUS needs to have. Anyone who had the misfortune to watch the clown doing his show on handling subordinates knows how much he enjoys abusing the help and indulging his impulses. Not how I'd run the DoD . . . No. The fact that you think it shows that says way more about you than it does about trump.

Phydeaux -> RE: Fascinating article on Trump (4/21/2016 2:52:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: No, I think you misrepresent the real question. Core supporters are irrelevent to the discussion at hand really, which isn't really the whether he will win - but rather that negative ads seem not to be working as previously. Ah, OK, gotcha. Sorry. And yes it does seem that to an extent they are having the opposite effect from the desired one, but again, who exactly is getting mad? Trump supporters or previously undecided voters? I think it is mostly the former. Also, the relative lack of negative campaigning on the Democratic side might have an effect as well, a lot of Republican voters might well be looking at both campaigns and be thinking to themselves "Well those fuckers can avoid the muck racking, why can't we?" And a 3rd factor is likely the stupidity of the negative campaigns themselves, they are focusing on petty stupid shit, like Trump's dumb tweets rather than his dumb policies. Like the whole 9/11 7/11 thing, I mean like really, who gives a fuck, so the guy had a slip of the tongue during a fucking campaign speech. So fucking what? Or the non-story about one plane not being properly registered. How the fuck is that his fault, some underling screwed up, and somehow this is indicative of his worth as a candidate? No, what is indicative of his unsuitability is his platform, the dumb ass shit he plans to do. The generally accepted statistic is that trump attracts 20% democrats/ undecided. Its far from clear, but I think the evidence is fast more Democrats will vote for Trump than Republicans for Hillary. You see this in the turnout figures. Record numbers on the Republican side, not so on the dem side But more especially trump is pivoting to the center far more adroitly than clinton. Witness the headlines today about lgbq bathrooms. Trump correctly calculates that hated of clinton is more relevant than hated of the gay rights movement. It will gain him far more moderate votes than it costs him conservative. As for Muckraking... no republican is thinking that. Righties go into elections knowing we will be unjustly pilloried by a lefty mainstream media. Those media have zero credibility. Is what fuels fox, talk radio, internet news agregators. You want to make your news biased. ... you lose any opportunity to impact our decision making. I do agree that pacs and Cruz have been guilty of bird dogging. But it doesn't change that this tried and true tactic isnt working. I think it points to a pissed of electorate. The only other option is that the same pacmen (tm) who have run these tactics campaign after campagn have gotten less skilled. I don't think so. The failure of 70 mil to even get a top 3 finisher is a sea change.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125