Quote: (07-22-2016 08:16 AM)Libertas Wrote:
Scott Adams gave it an A- on his periscope. We shall see what he has to say.
This morning the usual "fact checkers" went into full swing with the usual "fact checking."
"Trump is correct when he says that crime has risen in the past two years - BUT IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY INDICATE A TREND!" (As if anyone gives a shit about the definition of "trend" in criminology. Recall, definition is the absolute lowest form of persuasion, even lower than reason.)
"Trump said our trade deficit is $800 billion, but this doesn't take into account the export of services, which brings it down to $500 billion." (IT'S JUST $500 BILLION GUYS!)
And so on.
I must admit, I was looking to see something along the lines of what Scott Adams said, a clear and unambiguous rejection of identity politics and a reframe as Democrats not giving a shit about their victim groups. He hit many of the right notes content wise, it seems to have worked...some, but how much? I think he could have done better on a bigger strategic scale, but it seems to have worked...some.
Check this out, it hints just how many Democrats (of course the audience was probably pre-screened):
His teleprompter delivery still needs big work though. I honestly think that's the biggest obstacle. The content was good (for the most part) and the message is one that has wide appeal...but it's just so many people just hate his delivery, and non-verbal communication is what matters. It causes big time cognitive dissonance. If Trump spoke like his kids this thing would be definitively over.
But also the Frank Luntz focus group hints that the RNC trashed the hag, and if her support drops while Trump's stays steady, he wins, so that matters too.
I think you (and I) will just have to accept that sub 100 IQ people need other assurances than we do, they're much more suspectible to 'niceness' since they base most of their life decisions on hivemind morality - due to lack of IQ for logic.