It’s like I said in another thread: Trump certainly has a lot of talent; it’s just a question of whether the sort of talent he has is appropriately labeled as “intelligence”. And yes, one aspect of his talent is that he is in fact quite good at marketing himself. That talent is unfortunately useless at being President of the United States, but we’ve already seen that it’s quite useful at becoming President of the United States.
Has he lost a fight with progressives?
He has lost against the far righting Alabama-that is true.
One thing I am trying to point out, and I hasten to add that I am on the side of the good guys, is that Trump and Democrats are playing two different games here. He is all about winning by making the other side lose. Democrats, especially Obama Democrats want to find win-win victories. So of course everything Trump does looks like failure to Democrats. But at the end of the day, Trump goes to the bank and the country ends up worse off.
Not that I want to or could cooperate with Trump. I would rather lose. But I am trying to realize that as bad as Trump looks, his actions have to be looked at in light of the results.
While that may be the way a joke goes, mine was a serious observation.
Even aside from the fact that he wasn’t engaging in a popularity contest with Clinton, and that the contest that he was engaging in, he won… He still got very close in that popularity contest. By the merits, the popular vote should have been an absolute blowout, in the 70-30 kind of territory (allowing for the standard Crazification Factor and for people who hated Clinton for reasons unrelated to Trump). It wasn’t. The difference between the 70-30 landslide we should have had and the 49-48 that we actually got is entirely due to Trump’s success at self-marketing.
Let me put it to you this way: I’m a more successful businessman than Trump is, and I may well have a higher net worth (both in the sense that any positive number is greater than any negative number). I don’t have any skeletons in my closet, and I certainly don’t have any skeletons outside of my closet. I don’t grab women by the pussy, I don’t mock war heroes, and I don’t call my own political allies cucks nor my supporters idiots. If I ran for President, what percentage of the popular vote do you think I would get? Why? What does Trump have that I don’t? There’s obviously something.
Have you read the article in the NYTimes about Trump and his evangelical support? He provides constant access to the evangelical press. He calls the leaders frequently asking for advice on issues of interest to them and issues they have no expertise on. Of the dozen evangelical leaders interviewed by the Times reporter ALL of them agreed that Trump is being unfairly criticized and maligned by the mainstream press. They continue to be strong and satisfied Trump supporters.
Trump doesn’t attack the strong-on either side. Not consistently. But if the other side is weak, regardless of which party that is, Trump will attack mercilessly. Unlike Reagan and establishment Republicans who support all Repubs, Trump agrees with the strong whoever they are and attacks the weak whoever they are. To the detriment of the country for sure. But it is the kind of effort that his core supporters agree with and support. His supporters are tired of compromise, probably because they feel they have been doing all the giving, and want to win at any cost. Democrats want a stronger better country. Trump doesn’t. He is all about him winning and you losing.
He wasn’t running a popularity contest with Clinton. He was running an election. And in the race he was running in, he won. Simple as that.
A dirty, unpleasant win, but winning is what matters to Trump.
As his supporters point out. Say what you will about Trump’s business failures. HIS name is on the 5th avenue building. HIS name is on the personal jet. For a failure he is not doing so bad.
Did you read your OP? Trump isn’t fighting with progressives. He’s fighting with other Republicans and they’re fighting with him. It won’t be the Democrats losing that fight.
As for results, where are they? What has Trump achieved other than getting elected?
He’s president of the United States, which puts him in very rare company. And that election is not a popularity contest, as others have already noted. If it were, Hillary would be president. It might even be argued that she lost the presidency because she was too interested in the popularity contest as opposed to the actual contest.
He also gets people to pay him millions of dollars just to put his name on things. How many people can do that?
Even before becoming president, his was one of the most recognized names in the US. Brand recognition is a significant part of marketing.
You’re the one trying to hold the Presidential election up as evidence of his marketing prowess. So pointing out that it’s actually determined by the electoral college rather undermines your point, not mine.
The idea that a silver-spooned fraudster with terrible aesthetic taste would become a symbol of luxury for a certain subset of the nouveau riche is impressive indeed. But I see no evidence that it was Donald Trump’s marketing genius that put him in those circumstances. What do you have in mind, in particular, that Donald Trump himself did to achieve that status?
Yeah, and that something is also obvious: lack of decency or shame.
We live in a period of intense negative partisanship in which any party nominee would receive 40-something percent of the vote regardless of who the nominee is. The real question is why Trump became the GOP nominee. That much is pretty obvious. It was immigration and white identity politics and his outsider status (along with name recognition). He was willing to be a Steve King, Jeff Sessions, figure without the baggage of having been in politics. Most people would not run for President based on a record of fraud and wealthy inheritance, and then run openly on exploiting fears of brown people. Was he able to do so because he was a marketing genius? No. It’s because of his other personal characteristics.
You could also open a fraudulent university. Why haven’t you done so? Is it because you lack the marketing genius?
No, it doesn’t. Part of marketing is knowing your target market, and marketing yourself accordingly. The presidential election is a huge marketing effort, and he won while going against almost all the advice of the “experts”. Few, if any, folks thought he could win. And yet he did.
The proof is, as they say, in the pudding. And are you claiming that he’s a symbol of luxury for only “a certain subset of the nouveau riche”? If so, I’d like to see your evidence for that.
If you want to claim that he got other people to do it for him, I’m going to say that’s a distinction without a difference-- especially in the area of marketing. Marketing is getting people to believe shit, and buy your product. If people are buying your product, then you’ve done the marketing right. This is especially true if you have a shitty product, which it sounds like you are saying is the case here.
Yeah, OK. If he really wanted to he could have won the popular vote. But he knew that the key votes were in Waukesha County!
If I’m not mistaken, that was Trump University’s tagline.
So he’s a marketing genius because he hired people good at marketing? Ooookay.
Celebrity status and a ton of luck. He also found the perfect resonance among the 25% of the electorate that are not only racist, but also batshit crazy and dumb as a sack of hammers. If you can choose your parents well, inherit a shitload of money and then multiply it by fucking over your contractors and customers, then be willing to spew mindless hatred, then it can be you. It also helps to have the sane vote split multiple ways in the primaries and to run against a very unpopular candidate.
Re: Marketing. Anyone actually curious might find this article from The Atlantic interesting: The Ingenious Marketing Strategies Behind Trump’s Success.
What humans do is they see winners and they come up with post hoc rationalizations about how they are geniuses. And they see losers and they come up post hoc rationalizations about how they did everything wrong. But what’s actually happening in the real world is that events are mostly not determined by an individual’s talents and choices.
Trump is a great example of this in both business and politics. If he had lost the presidential election, as he very nearly did, no one would be claiming he’s some kind of political savant. And the difference, based on the actual evidence of what moved the polls, is just a whole bunch of other shit that had nothing to do with him.
It’s not very persuasive to argue the outcomes. It is much more persuasive to actually identify the choices you think made those outcomes happen.
Let me put it this way:
Suppose the political circumstances in 2016 had been very different. Instead of a big anti-immigration wave on the GOP side, there was huge humanitarian sympathy to Syria. Instead of a fractured, outrage-driven media environment, it was more like it was in 1965. Instead of a 16-way primary, it was a one-on-one, policy-focused affair.
In those circumstances, do you honestly imagine Trump running a very different campaign? I think the obvious answer is “no.” He did not shrewdly adapt himself to 2016. Instead, he has always been a bombastic, narcissistic, controversy-creator who doesn’t give a shit about policy but dislikes non-white people. He didn’t put on those clothes as a marketing ploy. That’s just who he his.
You can’t really give him credit for being born on third base and reaching home on a suicide bunt.
He is a two year old in mentality, yet with power. However he stepped in the ring of a system which was designed to prevent what a two year old would do. We will see how this turns out. Staff claims him incompetent under the 25 Amendment if he wants to launch nukes at the poor country of NK, impeachment, or just mopping up the damage, cleaning the room so to speak. He has power, but not maturity, His intelligence is only geared to demand loyalty and how to enforce it. Dangerous yes, but wisdom should be able to outsmart a toddler, no matter the power he wields.
His dad founded the Trump Organization and gave it to him. His dad’s name is on those buildings, and he just shares a name.
So, which is the more brilliant marketing coup? Trump Steaks, Trump Wine or New Coke? How about Trump University? Did it actually make a profit after it paid off the law bills and the fraud fines? And when we say “marketing”, do we mean successfully advertising and promoting a good and useful thing, or putting one over on the people?
As for his father, my understanding is that his primary contribution was passing along the strategy of keeping victims in court, racking their legal bills until they surrendered and settled for chump change. The idea was his father’s, but he expanded and improved upon it. In literary criticism, they would say his father was a seminal influence.