Well, how about he tries showing us THAT side of Trump? He does need to have those skills you describe to run succesful businesses, let’s see him impress us with that. The man is no imbecile, he’s a Wharton grad as he enjoys repeating – at some point he may want to act like it.
Facile blowhard soundbites to make the bleachers cheer are fine for stumping but really, “if I’m President I’ll take shit from nobody” is setting yourself up to having to eat it.
He’s showing the side that gets him votes - that’s the game. He’d be an imbecile not to.
Well on the one hand that makes it different to distinguish between a mad scientist playing a deep game and ADHD. On the other, if Trump can’t clear 51% then we can set aside the concept that he is some sort of deep game genius. He’s good at the reality TV shtick, but that might not be sufficient for anything other than being a 3rd party spoiler.
Starving Artist: My central point wasn’t about the villainy, my point was about the super-genius contention. (My bad: I could have expressed it better.) Another imperfect comparison might be to Wile E Coyote. Sure, Trump has amassed a great fortune, but unlike true business greats such as Jobs, Buffett, Larry Page, and Neutron Jack, his investors have generally taken a bath with him. In other words while Trump has amassed a great wealth, I don’t think he’s created a great wealth outside of showbiz. I suspect the truth will turn out to be more nuanced: I’d like to see some sort of outside review of the exercise run by Forbes.
All that said, methinks your hypothesis about getting bored with business is in play.
Trump’s favorability ratings have gone up among Republicans in the last few weeks, which is surprising given his pre-existing name recognition. My analysis is premised upon his not having a realistic shot at the GOP nomination and him knowing that. The shift in favorabilities is a modest piece of evidence against that framework.
The contention that Trump doesn’t care about focus groups or popularity, and just says what he believes is simply laughable. Of course he cares about focus groups and popularity, why do you think he’s talking about dirty immigrants and economic protectionism?
In the “serious” Republican party these are things you can’t talk about. The real base of the Republican party–the money guys–are in favor of global capitalism, and are in favor of cheap immigrant labor. And that means you can’t be a serious Republican politician if you talk about such things, because then the money guys won’t back you, and then you’re forgotten.
The problem then is that the tea party types really really hate dirty immigrants, and they also don’t like shipping jobs to Mexico. So there’s this huge untapped reservoir of supporters for someone who is comfortable posing as against immigrants and open borders and global capitalism. Trump doesn’t have to pander to the money guys, he has his own money.
Of course it’s just a crock, because Trump turns out to be a money guy in reality, and so of course doesn’t give a shit about immigrants taking our jobs, and is in favor of global capitalism. But he’s extremely comfortable pretending to be the tribune of the white working class.
Trump is not going the distance on this, he got into the race to get his name in the papers and build his brand, I’m sure even he is surprised he’s doing as well as he is. Trump isn’t exactly stupid, not exactly. He has a reputation of convincing supposedly smart people to hand him a bunch of money, keeping a chunk of it, and then flushing the rest of the money down the toilet. He is smart, but you’d have to be an idiot to get into business with Donald Trump and expect him to help you make money together.
The success of Trump certainly says a lot about the current state of the Republican Party, and the conservative media complex, none of it good.
Here’s an interesting online article/interview with Trump that appears in The Hollywood Reporter. The interviewer finds herself liking him in spite of herself. There’s no doubt he’s both a hell of a lot more fun and a lot more interesting to talk to than anyone else in politics.
Trump’s also continuing his rise in the polls and now enjoys an almost 80% approval rating among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents and has drawn within 6 percentage points of Hillary Clinton.
I’ve suspected all along that Trump’s arguments will become more nuanced and detailed as time goes on. It’ll be interesting to see if his popularity holds once he starts to become more specific on the various issues.
Boy this stuff makes me happy. Go Trump go! I haven’t had this much fun in politics since the 2012 schadenfreude.
Please, Republicans. Nominate Trump. Don’t worry about Hispanic voters – they won’t turn out. Don’t worry about women voters.
Yes! See Republicans, nothing to worry about.
Don’t worry about intelligent voters.
What is Trump?
Trump is a little bird tweeting in meadow.
Trump is a pretty flower, which smells bad.
Personally, I think Trump is a loud-mouthed misogynist blowhard with delusions of grandeur. I don’t think he’s an idiot, though he’s doing his best to convince me otherwise.
However, for a different perspective, Scott Adams has been posting about Trump over on his blog. He has a different opinion, and thinks it highly likely that Trump will be the Republican candidate, and will win if Clinton falters.
His theory goes something like this. Trump is a screwd negotiator. He literally wrote the book on negotiation. Trump is a businessman with his own funding and therefore not beholding to other big business folks, so he has the freedom to speak his mind, say what he wants, etc. That’s not news - many people here have said as much. Where Scott goes different is that he credits Trump with a different approach to running.
You see, he says that Trump is a trainee of the Tony Robbins school of talking, a form of hypnotism in how he speaks, how he phrases things. It’s not stage hypnotism, which is bunk, it’s a more natural form - neuro-linguistic programming. Yep, Scott admits he also studied it and that it works (10% real, 90% marketing, but that 10% is powerful). Scott actually calls it wizardry, in a distracting metaphor. The phrasing of his vague comments aren’t meant to nail specifics, they’re meant to create the attitude and emotion in the listener he wishes to achieve, to establish a “brand” and emotional appeal that will stick around long after the facts.
Then he describes Trump’s totally different approach. He’s not coming at this as a politician, he’s coming at it as a businessman. And as a businessman, you don’t start a negotiation at the point you wish to achieve, you start way over there off on the side where it is ridiculous, so that you then give ground through negotiation to end up where you want to be. He thinks that is the basis for Trump’s immigration policy. The Mexico Wall and deporting children US citizens of illegal immigrants thing is the wacky stuff he doesn’t expect to get, but then when he gives ground he ends up with a wall but also a path to citizenship. So he appears tough, but appears to have compromised, but really ended up where he wanted to end up.
Now I think Scott is missing something - Trump may be reaching a certain element that likes straight talk and a challenge to the status quo in politics. However, a lot of what he says comes off as sheer nuttiness, total assitude. And that also creates a “brand” and emotional connection that sticks around. And that is where the moderates and liberals are coming at Trump, and why he will suffer eventually, once the voters start getting serious.
My own opinion is that I’ve watched a few seasons of “The Celebrity Apprentice”, and everything about Trump rubs me the wrong way. I hate the idea of him as the President. I don’t care if he’s managed to make billions, he’s a colossal mass of ego, inconsistency, and misogyny. And the sad part is he probably believes he isn’t a misogynist, simply because he “loves women” and has female executives he pays well. But it’s in his attitude in how he relates to women, just like is response to Meghan Kelly. Just like his comments about Heidi Klum.
Now I’m not going to debate the validity of claims of Heidi’s status as a 10 or not - that is a subjective evaluation that varies for individuals. I mean, I bet there are folks here who wouldn’t have rated her a 10 at her height of youth, simply because no woman that skinny can rate over a 7. And yes, she has aged a bit - congratulations for recognizing the human condition.
No, what is bizarre to me is how that comes up in conversation. I mean, is he talking about immigration policy, and then somehow that brings up Heidi Klum because she’s German, and then he thinks about her rating? Okay, reading the articles linked above, it appears it started with some appearances on Howard Stern’s radio program a few years ago, and then Maureen Dowd bringing up those conversations. But did he state that now, or was that quoted from what he said on the radio? Did it enter the interview at all, or was it inserted by her?
Anyway, I’ve seen how he reacted to Star Jones, and there was a Miss Universe that was one of his contestants, and his words about several other female apprentices. And his attitude and words when he’s being unfiltered show his misogyny, even though he doesn’t see it.
And it’s not being PC to be aware of whom you’re speaking to and about and not insulting them or belittling them. That’s diplomacy and common courtesy.
Anderson Cooper was on The Late Show with Seth Meyers the other night, and discussing things with Seth, and Seth brought up the hours Trump keeps. Anderson commented that after the debate, the tweets were coming out at 2 am, 2:35 am, 4 am. Apparently he follows social media heavily, he seems to follow everything. Anderson said he was interviewing Trump, and Trump was tweeting about the interview while it was happening, and then tweeting about the follow on interviewee while that was going on.
Then how do you explain Senator Ted Cruz? (He’s from my fucking district, goddamn it.)
Bill Gates is worth over $82 billion and is currently the richest man in the world, according to wikipedia. Forbes has him listed at a mere $78.9 billion. I think Trump is the piker next to Gates.
And he’s still a bully.
OMG, steaks, for sale at… The Sharper Image. Because that’s where I expect to buy quality food, right next to the ionic fan and the ear/nose hair trimmer kit.
Because Megyn Kelly was totally fucking with him, not asking a legitimate question about his own displayed attitude towards women. Instead of taking the question seriously, and giving a reasonable answer, he made a joke out of it and then later blasted her. And what’s worse is he admits it was a question that would totally have hurt him to answer straight up.
Yep, bully.
It’s been hypothesized that his flailings in the matter in the past have been floating the idea and expecting America to come clamoring to him, begging him to take over, and when they didn’t do it enthusiastically enough, he balked. But his ego is now big enough he thinks he really is the right man for the job, and he just has to wake America up.
[quote=“Irishman, post:171, topic:726581”]
Personally, I think Trump is a loud-mouthed misogynist blowhard with delusions of grandeur…
I couldn’t agree more. Power, he wants more power, plain and simple. He’ll say anything and everything to get it, he’ll worry about promises tomorrow. He wants to be the most powerful man on earth.
As with previous “campaigns,” he may have started out on a lark for Brand publicity, but you can tell from subtle shifts in his latest presentations that this time his ego has him thinking he can win this thing.
I’ll never forget his glare during the White House Correspondent’s Dinner when President Obama got revenge, mocking Trump for his birther remarks:
“All kidding aside, we all know about your credentials and breadth of experience. In an episode of “Celebrity Apprentice” … you didn’t blame Lil’ Jon or Meatloaf … you fired Gary Busey. These are the kinds of situations that would keep me up at night.”
Any man who can’t laugh at himself, even for appearances sake, is too full of himself.
Excellent post Irishman, a lot of food for thought. Thanks for the head’s up on the Dilbert blog. Interesting marketing/hypnotism ideas - though I’m not all that worried - unless it turns out that Hillary really did kill Vince Foster.
I’m counting on intelligent voters seeing through Trump’s fascinating “wizardry” by election day. And it is fascinating. I’m enjoying The Trump Show immensely, I am helpless to avert my eyes, can’t wait for each day’s installment. You can’t make this stuff up … I’m already casting the movie.
GOP - the dogs who caught the speeding car. It’s turning out to be a hell of a ride that they well deserve. After all, they spent the last eight years riling up their own base into a steamy mix of xenophobia, paranoia and directionless rage … when they thought it would hurt President Obama.
Now that it has spectacularly backfired, don’t blame me for doubling over in laughter.
I’m pretty sure that Trump’s appeal will stay within that 25% base of sexist, racist, misogynist and anti-science yahoos. Not enough to win a general election. And Hispanics are organizing like crazy …
If Trump had a hypnotic way of speaking, then why would it seem to have the opposite effect on the majority of people?
Anyways, NLP is bullshit. The stuff is 100% about marketing–in the form of marketing NLP as something that works. The stuff about it that does seem to work is all just basic persuasion techniques.
Nuanced…perhaps. But can a leopard change its spots? If Trump down is essentially a narcissistic sexist bigot, won’t that always be there underneath?
The Donald don’t do nuance.
Know who else had a hypnotic way of speaking? 
Scott sems to be saying is not that people will immediately fall under his sway, but rather is a subtle undercurrent that over time will make you think of Trump positively and as a viable candidate, a problem solver, etc. I’m not buying it, but the claim is more subtle than just the majority will immediately agree with him.
I don’t think Scott would strongly disagree with you. Rather, he would claim it is about the specific marketing techniques - the way things are phrased, the positive and upbeat over negative, the broad strokes that let you project what you want into the gap.
Scott claims to have studied hypnotism and uses it, and he recognizes the tools being used.
Trump has a personality, and sadly, these days that seems to be a huge advantage.
Know who else wrote a book?
Jimmy Fallon?
I think Trump knows little or nothing about policy, is unaware of his ignorance, has no political experience and would make a terrible President. I also think he is playing the clown now, creating ridiculously low expectations, and plans to raise his game at a later moment. Older vids of the guy show him in a more thoughtful mode. That doesn’t mean he has the chops to be an effective public diplomat either with Congress or with foreign nations.
The fact that he knows nothing about policy will not phase fans of the conservative electronic media. They don’t really value competence or expertise that much. You get the idea that they get their car fixed at their barber and have their mechanic perform brain surgery. The GOP’s far and away most experienced candidate is polling at about 4%. And he’s even governor of a swing state!
I think there’s something to the NLP interpretation though, whether or not Trump has studied such techniques (I haven’t). Trump talks like he has ADHD, which gives the impression of idiocy. But he has a certain verbal instinct for what works on reality TV and what does not, unlike most people and most politicians (thank God).
To see this, consider Scott Adam’s latest post. CNN asks Trump to comment on the Pope’s latest critique of capitalism. That’s a trap, albeit a mild one. Trump could evade, which looks evasive. Trump could engage which on television looks like, “Trump-capitalism-corruption”, given realistic attention spans. Now skilled politicians know that when you answer a question on television, you don’t answer the question asked but rather the question you wished they asked. That’s press conference 101. Newt Gingrich cracked the code by recognizing that the real way to answer questions during a debate format is to… turn everything into an attack on the media. The crowd loves that.
But Trump operates on a even higher level. Much higher. Trump says, “I’d say ISIS wants to get you. You know that ISIS wants to go in and take over the Vatican? You have heard that. You know, that’s a dream of theirs, to go into Italy.”
Wait whuh? Scott Adams: [INDENT][INDENT]Do you even remember the question anymore?
Now compare the wattage coming from these two thoughts:
A boring discussion about corruption in capitalism. ([CNN]’s question)
A mental picture of ISIS taking over the Vatican.
No comparison. Corruption and capitalism are mere concepts that have no visual appeal. The ideas are important yet inert.** But an ISIS overthrow of the Vatican is so visual you wonder why it isn’t already a movie.** And that visual is all anyone will remember of that interview in a week.
Do you still think Trump’s clown act is random?
Read more: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/127158474091/anchors-away#ixzz3jPk4oAPe
[/INDENT][/INDENT] Emphasis added. Trump has terrific television instincts. He’s also wholly unqualified for the Presidency.