09-19-2016, 12:44 PM
(09-19-2016, 02:56 AM)Galen Wrote:(09-19-2016, 02:33 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:(09-19-2016, 12:31 AM)Galen Wrote:(09-19-2016, 12:09 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Judging from how he has botched his campaign, Trump has the potential....
Scott Adams seems to think otherwise and so far his prediction for a Trump win seems to be coming true. From what I have seen even now Trump's persuasion game is far better than Hillary's.
The thrust of Bob's post it seems to me is that since Trump has botched his campaign, he would botch up his presidency. The former seems to be happening, and if Trump has the chance to actually win, due to his entertainment (i.e. "persuasive") skills, then he would get his chance to be the disaster we need for a regeneracy to follow him. Which is the most we can expect from him.
Scot Adams would again disagree with you because there are many features of his behavior that suggest he is actually pretty good at managing risk. In fact, it looks like Trump has done pretty well with his unorthodox campaign tactics. Adams' thesis at this time is that Trump's risk profile looks like that of an entrepreneur which wouldn't bother most Xers much. When you are already screwed then it is time to start taking chances. A surprising number of my Xer acquaintances have decided that Trump may not be the answer but it is a certainty that Hillary isn't.
As it is Hillary has trouble getting people to show up for her events. This is not a good sign for here campaign. Trump fills stadium and Hillary events have empty seats. The social media data also indicate that she is not doing well. This has been going on since before the convention.
Looking at the data I have to conclude that Trump will most likely win the election. In this I believe that Scott Adams is correct.
This Presidential election violates all the norms of 'conventional wisdom'. Ordinarily, both Presidential nominees have significant experience in elected politics. Donald Trump has none, and Hillary Clinton has a short career as an elected official. Being First Lady of a State and of the United States may give one considerable perspective on executive office, but it is not executive office. Donald Trump has experience in politics, largely in schmoozing with public officials for zoning variance and tax breaks. What that has to do with making votes based upon (ideally) wise judgment and making deals with elected officials is beyond me.
So the lead changes back and forth based upon events that in the grand scheme mean nothing unless they expose the character of a politician. OK -- were Mitt Romney the Republican nominee, then Hillary Clinton would be going down in a 40-state landslide.
Of course it is not enough for me to say that Donald Trump is awful. Yes, he would be a disaster -- but America did elect James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, and George W. Bush as president. So simply because he is horribly unqualified to be President in accordance with precedent doesn't mean that he can't be elected. I'd want to be out of the investment markets, and indeed I might want to be in another country.
So I don't have to discuss that Donald Trump has been kissing up to dictators, that he has belittled the legitimate authority and credibility about women and minorities in office and the media, that he has called for political violence, and that his business dealings are often shady, and that he has said whatever was convenient at the moment with reckless disregard for the truthfulness of what he says. I may think all those traits all warning signs of someone who will be very troublesome if given the powers of the Presidency -- and some think those 'refreshing differences'. Some people find gold-plated bathroom fixtures impressive, and some people admire a masterful liar as I might admire the playing of a virtuoso pianist. Of course I will shun the liar and take delight in hearing the virtuoso pianist. But that is I.
The polls have been bouncing around. Two released this weekend showed Hillary Clinton up 9 in Pennsylvania, which is somewhere between where Obama was in 2008 and where he was in 2012. A Florida poll shows Hillary Clinton up 1%, insignificant in itself, but showing that Hillary is close enough in Florida to make the state iffy. That's how Florida was throughout 2012, in a year in which the 29 electoral votes of Florida did not swing the election. Polls for Hillary Clinton collapsed as her health faltered. She seems honest enough about the situation. Sure, there's nothing shameful about declining health unless one did things to put oneself in that plight, so her health seems like something that she can be little hurt by by full disclosure.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
