I also thought it was astute, and I very rarely agree with Starving Artist about anything.
If you’re happy with a blowhard silverback gorilla as your leader, why would anyone want to rain on your parade?
SA, so many liberals are either genuinely clueless about Trump’s appeal or are on purpose putting on the groupthink blinders when thinking about him. Which is actually not bad. The less seriously they take him, the easier it is for him to succeed.
Keep in mind that Trump is still riding herd over his business empire, saying that he’s spending 50% of his time on business and 50% on his campaign.
And there’s really not much reason for Trump to be throwing a lot of money into his campaign at the moment. He’s already on top, has massive publicity (I saw something the other day to the effect that it would have taken $50 million to buy the publicity he’s gotten so far) and support for his candidacy is growing day by day.
I too am having a hard time believing he’s really in this to achieve the presidency, and probably won’t buy it fully until he gets defeated in the general election or actually sworn in as president, but in the meantime I don’t know that he’s insincere either. It’s hard to believe he wants to live under the constraints of the presidency, but it’s also hard to believe that a faux campaign is going to earn him enough more money to make his campaign worthwhile. When has being an also-ran in a presidential election been seen as bestowing some sort of cache on the loser? I’d expect that if defeated Trump will carry on in business pretty much as he has in the past, but I have difficulty imagining why his candidacy would ipso-facto overcome not only the losses he’s already absorbed in cancelled contracts and cash spent on the campaign, but be a windfall for him in the future to boot.
Ugh. Now Terr is right. If we on the left want to understand Trump’s appeal, we have to listen to the people he is appealing to, and not just say “oh, he’s not really appealing to anyone; he just gives the appearance of it.” I’d rather overestimate him and be wrong than underestimate him into the White House.
(It’s about five months too early to worry about his actual chances, but the perfect time to analyze his appeal.)
I suppose this goes for Nate Silver too… but until he has a track record other than extremely good for Presidential predictions, I’ll stick with him.
Yeah, it’s hard to tell. There are a lot of things liberals say that I used to think was just for effect but since discovering this board I’ve come to realize they actually believe. It’s hard, for example, to imagine they think he’s dumb or an idiot, or that he’s only successful because of his father’s money, etc., but I think a lot of people here genuinely believe every word of it.
Man that Nate Silver sure is dumb! I can’t believe that idiot thinks Trump doesn’t have much of a chance at the nomination!
Hmm…I just had a maybe epiphany. What if Trump’s primary motive all along in doing The Apprentice was to let people get to know him well enough to make a presidential bid feasible?
I always wondered why he spent however much of his time the show took because the money he made from it paled in comparison with the money he makes from his other enterprises. But the fame, familiarity and reputation he’s gained from being on that show is very likely what’s fueling his run now and making it so successful.
I’ve always said that The Donald is almost always seeking to accomplish something on another level other than what he seems to be doing on the surface, and this fits perfectly.
There’s no way to know of course, but if so then there’s no question he’s in it to win it.
I don’t think he’s an idiot; I concur with Stoneburg’s characterization of reptilian intelligence. I do think he’s poorly educated in the classical sense and not especially thoughtful, except as pertains to business (specifically the business of self-promotion), and that he frequently says very stupid things, in part because his mouth continues to run whenever his brain takes a catnap.
I’ve also come to accept that should he run, he has a decent chance of winning. I think this would be a Very Bad Thing, but in this golden age of trollery, maybe it’s not unfitting for the Übertroll to become our king.
Actually, the more authentic-seeming person has almost always won. Or a better way to put it is that candidates that come off as phony always lose.
I think he’s trying to fulfill the prophecy.
When night draws darkest in America ('cause Mexicans), a golden dome will rise, and light our darkest hour.
Right – Goldwater, Mondale, and McCarthy were known as incredible phonies. That Mondale, promising to raise taxes… that Goldwater, with his extremely conservative views… that McCarthy, with his incredible liberal-osity… what a trio of phonies! Especially when compared to the unflinchingly authentic LBJ, Nixon, and the guy who never made a living pretending to be other people, Reagan.
Nate’s pretty much called it for one candidate on the Democratic side. I at least allow for three possible winners. And I do think Clinton can win the nomination. I just don’t think she can win the election. With her electability argument looking shaky in recent general election polling, I’m not sure what compelling reason there is for her candidacy, even for Democrats.
Clinton is a known quantity who is unlikely to improve her standing. Like Trump and Bush, her numbers are what they are and they just aren’t good enough. All the candidates I listed, their numbers are either already good enough(Biden) or they are on track to get there(Carson), or there is a path to victory for them if the frontrunners falter(O’Malley).
Carson enjoys a favorability rating 20 points higher than Clinton and the last two polls show him leading or tied with Clinton:
So if you want to invoke present day data, Carson does actually have a better chance at being President than Clinton. If you think that’s an outlandish observation, then it means that like me, you don’t just look at present numbers, but attempt to extrapolate trends from the data. You apparently believe that in a few months, Clinton will be doing better than she is now, and Carson worse. That’s reasonable.
Reagan was an actor, but people liked him. A lot. Unlike virtually any other politician, he never made a secret of the fact that he didn’t know a lot of things and relied heavily on his staff. This is true of all politicians, even the Clintons and Obamas of the world, but they’d like you to believe they are like Josiah Bartlett, walking encyclopedias of facts and names and dates.
Goldwater and McGovern are exceptions that prove the rule. Authentic, but also way too ideological for the public. Trump is too much of an asshole for the public. Ideologically, he’s actually just a populist. Maybe he’s too much of an asshole to win. But we’ve never had someone as phony as Hillary Clinton running either. So if that was the general election, who knows?
Oops, McGovern, not McCarthy. Don’t know how I screwed that one up.
snif That’s beautiful.
(Except for, you know, the “Mexicans part”, because Trump and I both like them.)
Thank you. Now I am emboldened enough to keep going…
I used to be in the ”Trump is a clown”-camp but that was before I actually saw some interviews myself, I was going only on what I had read about him and others opinions. Now I think that most people have completely missed what he is about, though of course I may be completely wrong. He’s basically bypassing the neo-cortex and going straight for the limbic system.
The way he speaks is actually very impressive when you understand what he is doing. I think the problem here for some other progressives is that they over value the actual words and contents of a speech, which are not that important in a live debate. People don’t remember what you say, they remember how you made them feel. And Trump makes you feel like he’s a winner, like he’s strong and passionate, and like he doesn’t take crap from anyone. At the same time he displayed a real sense of humor on the Fallon show. That bit in the mirror was both funny AND disarming. He made fun of himself, which relaxes people and make them drop their defenses.
Just look at the mirror bit and think about what the symbolism is. Fallon is basically this small, skinny but smart and funny nerd, and he is sitting down with the biggest guy in school that everyone is a bit scared of. He has a reputation of being a bully. But not only does the big presumed bully NOT beat up the guy when he makes fun of him, he joins in the joke in a very funny and disarming way, showing he is not a threat. After that he is on YOUR side and now his displays of strength are not only not frightening, they are comforting. Since he is not a bully, he can protect us against other bullies. Now we are admiring his strengths and forgiving him of his trespasses, and we know it is even safe to joke with him. Now WE want HIS approval, so we show how much we love him by applauding and laughing at his jokes.
Imagine two tribes of hunter gatherers in the wilderness. One tribe is lead by Hillary Clinton and the other tribe is lead by Donald Trump. Resources are scarce and you are fighting for survival every day, and the threat of another tribe attacking is imminent. Where would you feel safer? I would honestly have to say with Trump. Now you can argue that being the president has nothing to do with that, and you would intellectually be right, we are now living in a post-industrial civilization that bears no resemblance to a small hunter gatherer tribe on the savannah, but our biology does not know that. Trump is responding to our biological need of a strong leader when we feel threatened, and he is doing it incredibly well.
Same thing goes for his interaction with Megyn Kelly. What I saw happening was this:
The big silverback was attacked by a high ranking female. The liberal response here would be to apologize, defend or acquiesce in some way. Not him. He basically growls at her and gets her to back off. A show of strength and domination, while still staying within allowed parameters. In our mammal brain we are basically relieved he didn’t punch her in the face. She backs down and he once again shows he’s the alpha male by winning the fight. He doesn’t tolerate challenges to his authority but he didn’t resort to violence, some clear posturing to show his strength was enough, so he even gets bonus points from our monkey brain for not over reacting.
People tend to forget that humans are still primates, and the more threatened we get, the closer we get to our animal nature, and the US is a very fear based culture. Lots of Americans feel threatened and will vote for the candidate that makes them feel safe or that can channel their anger. Trump does both like nobody else. Are you afraid? Trump will protect you if you’re part of his tribe. Are you angry at someone? Trump is gonna get them in the ring and kick their ass for everyone to see.
If trump was the candidate and the election was sooner, I would say Joe Biden would be the Democrats only hope of winning. He’s the only one of the D candidates that projects strength and confidence. Not at the levels of Trump, but he has him beaten when it comes to compassion, likability and experience so I think he’d take it. Hillary and Sanders would not stand a chance IMHO. They’re two chimps, you need another silverback gorilla.
The only thing working against Trump as I see it is time. He gets people pumped up and he might have started the party a bit early, there’s a risk people are going to be hung over when it’s election time. He’s also going to be saying some really offensive things, and the more time he has to do that, the bigger the risk that he actually throws something out that could be a deal breaker.
Not really – I think he has it at about 85%. That’s pretty high, but it’s awfully early and he’s acknowledged that things could change. Plus, he’s Nate Silver. When you dismiss him you’re dismissing the guy who got it totally right the last two Presidential elections, when you and many others got it totally wrong.
Can’t win the election? That’s nuts. Maybe you think she doesn’t have a great chance at it, but can’t win? Even if Cruz is nominated? Or Trump? Or a Bush weakened by a primary with a third party Trump (or other)? You really believe she cannot win? That’s totally crazy insane.
That’s ludicrous, not reasonable. What is Carson’s chance at the nomination? I think it’s about 3-5% at best. If he wins the nomination, what are his chances to win the presidency? I’ll be generous and say 50% (in reality I think it’s more like 10%). That means he has a 1.5-3% chance at the Presidency.
Let’s compare that to Clinton: she has about an 80% chance at the nomination, in my view. Let’s say you’re right and she’s in big trouble – let’s say she has a 50% at the nomination. I think she’d then have at least a 50% chance at winning the general election, but let’s pretend you’re right and she’s in big trouble nationally – even if her chances in the general election are only 20%, that’s still a 12.5% chance overall for her to win the presidency, which dwarfs Carson’s 1.5-3%. That’s with the best possible estimate for Carson and the worst for Clinton.
It’s just totally ludicrous, and an indication that you’re blinded by bias or something with this. Hillary has a good shot at the nomination, and a decent shot at the presidency in the general election (consider that she might face Trump, or Bush, or Cruz, or a combination of these). That’s reasonable – Carson having a better chance is not.
Trump strikes me as a lot like Bill O’Reilly. O’Reilly was a pretty reviled figure until he actually went on other talk shows and let them make fun of him and he took it like a sport and now he and Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are like BFFs and liberals are pretty much over him. I wonder if Trump’s trodding down that same path. Because aside from his immigration rhetoric and generally being a dick there’s not too much of his platform that Democrats would object to. His actual positions look like something Bush 41 might have supported.