IME it’s not completely failed candidates who get accused of political malpractice. The idea is that you’re talking about someone who has done the tough things (as you describe), but then senselessly neglects stuff out of Politics 101. And #whinylittlebitch Trump hasn’t won anything yet–nothing more than Romney did, or McCain. So why would he let those bad optics come into play at the same time as the optics around his grand entrance the previous day were so nicely orchestrated? I suppose it’s because he doesn’t really give a shit about any aspect of the campaign that isn’t about him personally.
But social proof is a powerful thing, and the empty hall in primetime does not, to say the least, encourage a bandwagon effect for people to feel like they ought to get in on the party.
Fwiw, I think it’s a common distribution on English language words.
I really find it difficult to believe this many people - even on an internet message board - think it likely (a) Melania wrote a speech and (b) didn’t think it would get picked up from all of 8 years ago.
The craziest thing is no one on the Trump campaign spotted it beforehand.
Anyone think Donald Jr. looked like a parody of a rich asshole in an '80s movie? I didn’t know rich douchebags were still rocking that gelled look. Maybe it’s how he tries to impress his very '80s dad.
Huh. If the following is true – and, sure, it might just be a pack of lies, but a guy’s gotta hope, right? – then he’s maybe planning on hiding it:
Now, again, I’m cynic enough to wonder whether that happened – and I’m cynic enough to wonder whether it was sincere, or just a con meant to get Kasich on the ticket; and cynic enough to wonder whether, even if it was sincere then, it’d still remain in force during the years in office.
But imagine for a moment that it’s all true: that Trump will simply keep doing what he’s been doing, while letting an experienced Governor with a decade in Congress handle things; and that he went to Kasich with that offer, who passed; and then he shrugged and made it to Pence, who accepted; and administration ensues.
Apparently the vast majority of us here no such desire.
edited to add: I guess there will always be those who will gather behind those who look like they are winners, no matter what they are willing to do to win.
All that says much more about who your party is than about Trump, SA.
Princhester, you’ve got the idea. Part of it is also encouraging turnout (not an issue for Aussies, but it is for us) by his supporters, with the emotion that most motivates them.
Notice that he did not say that when we elect Trump, he’ll begin to make America great again or he will do things to make America great again. No, he said that when we elect him, American WILL HAVE been made great again.
I don’t know quite how to take this. Is the implication that from just putting Trump in power, America will be made great again just by his very presence? Or does it mean that getting rid of the Kenyan Muslim socialist (and his lying protege) will return America to greatness without doing anything else? Probably some of each.
I guess this fits in well with the whole campaign strategy: Don’t outline any specific programs or policies. Just promise greatness. Let the people imagine that greatness can be achieved just by electing him and not doing any of the hard work of governance. Let them feel good just by having their hero in office, not by expecting any particular achievement (beyond the impractical promise of building a great wall paid for by Mexico).
I actually think that you have a point here. The man has redefined American politics. He’s shown how it’s possible to make mistake after mistake (or at least what are considered mistakes according to current wisdom) while still retaining a large and fervent base of support. He’s done this by taking the crassest form of marketing - appealing to the lowest and basest of human motivations - and applying it to campaigning. Others have done this, of course, but not quite at this level, at least not in recent times. Trump is a master at marketing himself to low information voters.
Unfortunately, that has little or nothing to do with being able to govern effectively. Marketing and governing are two different things, and yes I do know that that implies a paradox at the heart of our system of government. We have a government run by those who are the best at marketing themselves rather than being the best at governing.
There is some small amount of overlap between the two skillsets. Being able to convince and inspire can be useful in governing. But in large part politics and governing are distinct skill sets.
Dishonest, sociopathic,and intent on scamming his own countrymen? Sure. But he’s not stupid. I don’t think there is any serious doubt that he has done a remarkable job hijacking the GOP and identifying, and tapping into, a widespread desire for a Putin-like strongman to take power.
It occurs to me that if we elect Trump into office, we are basically electing in Biff from Back to the Future. A craven, egotistical maniacal narcissist.
Top rate people generally prefer to work for somebody who will actually pay them. (So do not-so-top-rate people, but it’s easier for the top-rate people to make it stick by telling the habitual deadbeats like il Doofus to go screw themselves while they hire themselves out elsewhere.)