As long as we’re worried about perfect representation lets go after the Senate too. Why should Alaska have the same number of senators as NY? An individual Alaskan has much more say in the Senate than a New Yorker.
Yes, he had a strategy. You clearly didn’t read the Forbes article I linked to up thread that profiles Trump’s son-in-law and chief campaign architect and implementer, Jared Kushner, who marshaled not only technology itself but high-tech brain power to create not only a winning campaign strategy but one that got by far the most bang for the campaign buck. (To make it easy I’ll link to it again here.)
Loathe though you may be to venture into an article about a rich Manhattan businessman married to the estimable Ivanka Trump, you know what they say around here about willful ignorance. You owe it to yourself and your legion of fan to learn more about this extraordinary young man and how a smarter, more modern, high-tech and targeted approach won Donald Trump the presidency. There was far more going on behind the scenes than one would imagine if they thought his candidacy consisted of nothing more than rallies.
Forbes is to the ruling class what Soviet Life used to be for orthodox Commies. I save my salt for tequila.
I didn’t suggest a subscription, just a little edification…you know, so as to fight a bit of ignorance.
You don’t win without a strategy. It may be a strategy that seems to make no sense to you, or that looks like nothing you ever saw before, or that flouts every thing we “just know is not so”, or that is just insane and only works if all the stars are right, but that’s different from not existing.
And Donald with his CEO vision of the world would feel he does not have to be the one who has a strategy himself, but rather those who work for him are the ones who have to have their strategy, or more like strategies as circumstances evolve, to deliver the results he wants (and save their own necks). And if it works, of course it will be claimed that the Boss was all in on it all the way all along.
Thus in SA’s link, it’s pefectly plausible that Kuchner DID develop his strategy, which was bought into and it brought about results. Whether that was the key or what made the difference would be another debate.
Though for crying out loud SA, lighten on the flattery and adulation, please, it’s going to be a long 4 years of that.
Perhaps if people would actually read the linked article instead of avoiding it, as luci has, or avoid offering factually erroneous suppositions about the strategy involved in Trump’s campaign, his role in it and/or his relationship with the people formulating and carrying it out (as, respectfully, has been the case in your post), it wouldn’t be necessary for me to carry so much Trump campaign water to keep ignorance from carrying the day.
I’m not kidding, the information contained in that profile is fascinating. The contrast between the way Trump’s campaign was run vs. the way Hillary’s was run is striking. Her’s being traditional, plodding and run exactly the way campaigns have always been run, whereas Trump’s could have been run by Steve Jobs - smart, spare, innovative and driven by insights no one else had. Anyone interested in the nuts and bolts of what is likely to become the new way of campaigning should find the Kushner article both interesting and enlightening, Trump himself notwithstanding.
Is this OP comprehensible? The results were different; ergo they are distinct types of race; ergo its a different game.
Did you see the polling shift over time? Then it’s not a theoretical experiment so some of us can ease our minds by thinking we know what’s in the whole electorates mind. It’s real.
The old Republican way was too dependent on the power of the rich elites. The New Republican Party will unify all the classes and people into one group, dedicated to patriotism, a shining citadel on the hill! The wealthy and the workers will be united in mind and spirit, dedicated to the founding of the New America, to last a thousand years!
One people, one America, One Donald!
I think you’re giving voters too much credit. While information about the candidates was freely available, how many voters bothered to look for it? A lot of people vote based on surface impressions and those are the easiest to sway by a round of ads or personal appearances.
I agree Trump himself didn’t really have a strategy. That’s why he had to hire three different strategists. He had a strategy in the primaries, sorta, but I don’t think winning was quite the goal of it–though it did become more important as time went on–and so he brought in more people.
And, no, the strategy of getting more Republicans who didn’t vote out didn’t work. Fewer Republicans voted. But fewer Democrats voted, too. He won by getting people not to want to vote at all.
And I see no sign that was anyone’s explicit strategy.
So Clinton got beat by a group with no strategy? Man, her team must really suck at their jobs.
Oh don’t get me wrong, SA, Kuchner’s strategy was excellent, I just am not convinced (yet) that was the game changer and certainly do not credit Trump himself for anything other than going along with what worked. As for “erroneous suppositions about relationships” well, we have to work with what we are allowed to see. Fawning profiles of the winners -after- they won don’t do it for me.
I agree that Trump himself wasn’t the one who fashioned the strategy. The entire thrust of the profile was that it was Kushner who envisioned it and how he made it work.
The ‘erroneous suppositions’ comment was in regard to what you said about Trump’s team having to come up with a winning strategy to ‘save their necks’. Kushner is extremely wealthy in his own right, and he’s married to Ivanka. So I don’t think his neck was ever in much danger. 