Octopus Overlords

Holman wrote:I just don't believe the America that exists outside of urban centers and college towns and internet startups is prepared to vote for an atheist Jewish socialist. A Sanders run would win only deep blue states, and that's an instant loss.

O RLY?

In a hypothetical matchup against the current GOP front-runner, business mogul Donald Trump, Sanders takes 49 percent of the vote to Trump's 41 percent. Against Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Sanders leads 44 percent to 43 percent. He also beats Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) by 10 percentage points and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson by 6 points.

Fifty-nine percent of voters also say Sanders is honest and trustworthy -- placing him well above former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, his chief rival for the Democratic nomination, and above all top Republican candidates tested in the poll.

Sanders appeals to the same anti-establishment impulse that Trump is riding, except with sanity and integrity. I'm not going to take the time to run down links, but he does draw independents and even those Republicans who aren't fans of the billionaire class.

It's most definitely an outside shot, but it's still a shot. Don't count him out before the voting starts.

Also don't underestimate how partisan the political and voting requirement is. Sanders would get 95%+ of democratic voters built in if he's the nominee, simply by the (D) next to his name, just as the Republican nominee will get 95% of the Republican voters simply by the (R).

Kraken wrote: Sanders appeals to the same anti-establishment impulse that Trump is riding, except with sanity and integrity. I'm not going to take the time to run down links, but he does draw independents and even those Republicans who aren't fans of the billionaire class.

It's most definitely an outside shot, but it's still a shot. Don't count him out before the voting starts.

Oh, I know, and I feel the appeal. But polls are one thing, and winning the race is another. Sanders is everything liberals want wrapped up in a fairly weak campaigner. Trump (a terrifyingly good campaigner) would run rings around him in the months that mattered.

It would be a fascinating experiment, though: could an earnest socialist message really beat a rich guy promising to make America rich? Trump would certainly pivot from hating foreigners to defending the American Way, and the message would have huge appeal to those suspicious of government solutions.

Sanders' problem is that anyone who runs against him can claim to be a centrist, even if they're not.

Holman wrote: Trump (a terrifyingly good campaigner)

He's good (well, amazing) at grabbing attention. Other than that, his campaigning only works for his supporters, and turns off those who don't already support him.

Defiant wrote:

Holman wrote: Trump (a terrifyingly good campaigner)

He's good (well, amazing) at grabbing attention. Other than that, his campaigning only works for his supporters, and turns off those who don't already support him.

+1. And I think this swings the other way. Sander's message is pretty good most of the time (in a different populist vein) - but he's really rough to listen to at length and the more people get to know him - the less I think people will like him.

I honestly don't think Trump is in any way, shape or form a brilliant campaigner. He's just tossing fear based rhetoric out there and whatever resonates with his extremist followers, he focuses on it.

hepcat wrote:I honestly don't think Trump is in any way, shape or form a brilliant campaigner. He's just tossing fear based rhetoric out there and whatever resonates with his extremist followers, he focuses on it.

He's not even a good speaker. The whole thing is mind boggling.

He's not bad with a quip on occasion, but they are B quality quips at best. They only appear decent because Politicians are more cautious than to just throw comments off the cuff like a good A quality quip requires, so he seems "ok" by comparison.

But that's about his public speaking. From an organized campaign, he seems to be pretty random.

GreenGoo wrote:

hepcat wrote:I honestly don't think Trump is in any way, shape or form a brilliant campaigner. He's just tossing fear based rhetoric out there and whatever resonates with his extremist followers, he focuses on it.

He's not even a good speaker. The whole thing is mind boggling.

He's not bad with a quip on occasion, but they are B quality quips at best. They only appear decent because Politicians are more cautious than to just throw comments off the cuff like a good A quality quip requires, so he seems "ok" by comparison.

But that's about his public speaking. From an organized campaign, he seems to be pretty random.

Two hundred years ago, if you couldn't stump for an hour and a half with sublime eloquence you had no chance. Now, if you can't whip the internet into a frenzy in 140 characters or less you have no chance.

To paraphrase Mort Sahl, over the last 200 years the Republican party has gone from the party of Lincoln, Goldwater, & Buckley to the party of Palin, Cruz, Carson, & Trump. What can we learn from this?

hepcat wrote:I honestly don't think Trump is in any way, shape or form a brilliant campaigner. He's just tossing fear based rhetoric out there and whatever resonates with his extremist followers, he focuses on it.

He's the enduring frontrunner who has weathered gaffe after misstep and only gotten stronger. He gets more attention and more exposure than anyone. He has set the terms of the entire race, and everyone else is forced to react to his moves rather than vice-versa. His message is now the party message whether they like it or not. He calls the tune.

And all of this despite the fact that he's an awful human being with an awful message. How is it anything but great campaigning?

Holman wrote: He's the enduring frontrunner who has weathered gaffe after misstep and only gotten stronger. He gets more attention and more exposure than anyone. He has set the terms of the entire race, and everyone else is forced to react to his moves rather than vice-versa. His message is now the party message whether they like it or not. He calls the tune.

And all of this despite the fact that he's an awful human being with an awful message. How is it anything but great campaigning?

While I absolutely agree that he's unbelievably great at getting attention and exposure, he hasn't been getting much traction beyond his large group of very stable, loyal supporters (of about 30%) - the "Establishment" wing and the religious wing of the party both don't like him.

Holman wrote:And all of this despite the fact that he's an awful human being with an awful message. How is it anything but great campaigning?

I guess it depends on what your definition of a campaign is.

Here's how I look at it. Dude sits down to play chess. Instead, he just overturns the table and calls it a victory, while morons cheer. When his opponents complain, he calls them fat or ugly. Morons cheer louder.

Is he a great chess player?

GreenGoo wrote:

Holman wrote:And all of this despite the fact that he's an awful human being with an awful message. How is it anything but great campaigning?

I guess it depends on what your definition of a campaign is.

Here's how I look at it. Dude sits down to play chess. Instead, he just overturns the table and calls it a victory, while morons cheer. When his opponents complain, he calls them fat or ugly. Morons cheer louder.

Is he a great chess player?

Well, he's never lost a game yet.

GreenGoo wrote:

Holman wrote:And all of this despite the fact that he's an awful human being with an awful message. How is it anything but great campaigning?

I guess it depends on what your definition of a campaign is.

Here's how I look at it. Dude sits down to play chess. Instead, he just overturns the table and calls it a victory, while morons cheer. When his opponents complain, he calls them fat or ugly. Morons cheer louder.

Is he a great chess player?

Worst analogy evar!

Thank you Rip. I value your input.

In Rip's defense, all Trump has really done at this point is talk about how great he is at chess, insult the pawns and talk about how dangerous checker pieces are. It's true he looks like he'll flip the table before it's all over, but he hasn't gone there yet.

GreenGoo wrote:

Holman wrote:And all of this despite the fact that he's an awful human being with an awful message. How is it anything but great campaigning?

I guess it depends on what your definition of a campaign is.

Here's how I look at it. Dude sits down to play chess. Instead, he just overturns the table and calls it a victory, while morons cheer. When his opponents complain, he calls them fat or ugly. Morons cheer louder.

Is he a great chess player?

When you throw over the board, the game is over. The nomination game is far from over, but Trump is leading.

Yes, he's not playing by the usual rules, but he's obviously scoring points. Maybe a better game analogy is that Trump is dunking baskets while the other candidates are running bases. What Trump does is shitty baseball, but in the end it's only the scoreboard that matters.

It's worth remembering that early U.S. elections were far nastier than 20th/21st century ones. Trump is running the kind of rough 19th century campaign where you distribute gin at the polling place, accuse your opponent of spreading syphilis, and promise to slaughter Indians and seize Mexico.

The knights love me.

I was going to go with more great analogies, but let's come at this from a different angle.

You're going to need to do more to convince me he's running a great campaign than to point at his success. His campaign might be successful up to this point, but that doesn't matter make it a great campaign. It could be a lucky campaign, it could be a terrible campaign but voters like him anyway, it could be any number of things.

EVEN if he intentionally campaigned (i.e. planned to be the non-status quo option) on saying random shit and hoping some of it stuck, that's not a great campaign. That's having an idea and having it work.

It takes more than an idea and making lots of money to be a good businessman (it's possible to make money despite 1 stupid decision after another, for example. I'm not talking specifically about Trump here), and it takes more than successful rabblerousing to be a great campaigner.

Sometimes being in the right place at the right time results in great success. That doesn't mean it took brilliant planning and effort to be there.

If, as the old saying goes, a broken clock is right twice a day, it also follows that a broken clock is the MOST ACCURATE clock in the world twice a day. Does that make a broken clock a better clock than your rolex?

Easier analogy for Rip's benefit.

All of this is frivolous without some criteria to grade campaigns. Without that all campaigns are great and awful at the same time.

So says Rip's Schrödinger campaign analyzer.

I'd say the criteria for a great campaign is that it gets the message out, attracts supporters, shapes the issues under discussion, and exerts more influence on opponents than they exert on you. Trump is soaring on all these counts. I don't see how anyone can deny it. Nothing is more results-driven than political campaigning, and Trump's results so far outpace all his rivals.

Of course Trump's style is hugely risky, and it might fail tomorrow. In that case, we reassess. But no one could have looked at the German invasion of Russia before it stalled and called it a bad military operation: it was succeeding and could have succeeded completely, and only after the bad decisions of the middle stage could you call it a failure.

(See how I got Hitler in there?)

(Speaking of whom, things do seem to be getting a little more Weimar in Trumpvaria.)

Rip wrote:All of this is frivolous without some criteria to grade campaigns. Without that all campaigns are great and awful at the same time.

So says Rip's Schrödinger campaign analyzer.

I'd agree. I have my own opinions of what makes a great campaign, but that doesn't make it true.

At the most fundamental level we can call any campaign that is successful a great campaign, but I don't like that and as I wrote, can show examples where even that simple evaluation can fall down. If people are willing to call success due to pure luck (to be clear I don't think Trump's success is *pure* luck) a great campaign then I've got nothing and there isn't much left to discuss (which is not what Holman is doing in any case, I'm just saying...).

Holman wrote:Trump's doctor: "Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency."

Statements like this are so stupid. How does he know the health status of every President ever elected? I hear William Henry Harrison was a paragon of health.

Moliere wrote:

Holman wrote:Trump's doctor: "Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency."

Statements like this are so stupid. How does he know the health status of every President ever elected? I hear William Henry Harrison was a paragon of health.

Spoiler:

Until his inaugural address.

It sounds like Trump wrote it himself.

Moliere wrote:

Holman wrote:Trump's doctor: "Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency."

Statements like this are so stupid. How does he know the health status of every President ever elected?

Well, the health status of 39 of the 44 presidents are a matter of public record - they're dead.

Defiant wrote:

Moliere wrote:

Holman wrote:Trump's doctor: "Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency."

Statements like this are so stupid. How does he know the health status of every President ever elected?

Well, the health status of 39 of the 44 presidents are a matter of public record - they're dead.

Holy crap, who would want a job with a track record like that?

Running rings around all those gomers who play by the traditional rules makes Trump a remarkable (if not "great") campaigner. Politicians have shared an unwritten playbook for decades, at least. The winner is supposed to be the guy who implements the checklist for his chosen strategy better than everybody else.

Trump's ripping up that playbook and making up a new one as he goes along, and the other candidates are flummoxed. Assuming he doesn't quickly go down in flames when the voting starts, people will be dissecting and trying to reproduce the Trump campaign for a long time to come. It's not like he invented demagoguery, and I don't think you can reduce hotheadedness to a formula. Trump just seems to be the Man of the Moment for a large segment of the electorate and nobody can do anything about that. So far, anyway.

It has to be some sort of "charisma" that he has, because others that have used his strategy haven't succeeded (anywhere near how he has) in the past.

I don't even think it's his money, because he hasn't been spending much (as opposed to, say Bush)

Must be climate change.......

Part of the art of Trump's campaign is keeping himself in the news. Has he even done a major media ad buy? He doesn't have to.

Trump is applying reality TV to politics -- give everyone the Big Lie. A core demographic will lap it up because they want to believe. The ego and self-promotion convinces others who believe what they see on TV. The controversy and irreverence makes mist-see TV and that adds another demographic. Trump is a marketer, and he's using that to destroy the weak campaigners in the GOP.

Zarathud wrote: A core demographic will lap it up because they want to believe.

... No, this is too far fetched for him.

Defiant wrote:It has to be some sort of "charisma" that he has, because others that have used his strategy haven't succeeded (anywhere near how he has) in the past.

I don't even think it's his money, because he hasn't been spending much (as opposed to, say Bush)

He's great at "Branding" and his reality tv persona has a life of it's own. He does have a form of charisma, but I doubt anyone would call it a traditional form. It's more of the kind that let's comedians call their audiences idiots to their faces and have them applaud. I don't know what that's called, but it's some form of bizarro charisma.

And just to be clear, Trump has spent decades "campaigning" through brand recognition. And now he's reaping the dividends. Politicians, presumably, have to spend some actual time doing their jobs. Branding *is* Trump's job.

He may not be spending a lot of cash right now, but he's not a household name because of his business acumen (well, not outside of marketing anyway).

His whole life has been one long campaign, and he has spent a TON of money along the way. But he has also made a ton of money. Now he gets to sit back and let Trump be Trump. He doesn't need to spend a lot of money today to do that. People know who he is, and the media are happy to tell people what he's been up to. In fact the media love him for it, and give him more air time than any dollar amount could buy. What else is there?

edit: What Zarathud said.

Kraken wrote:Assuming he doesn't quickly go down in flames when the voting starts, people will be dissecting and trying to reproduce the Trump campaign for a long time to come.

And in my opinion made politics slightly shittier in the process. I kinda hate the guy, for taking politics another step further down the path of slimey gamesmanship, rather than integrity, leadership and topics that matter.

And yes, I realize getting elected is and has always been about gamesmanship. I'm concerned that the natural outcome of that is a gamer with absolutely no ability to govern or without any sense of responsibility or duty beyond himself.

This is even stupider than "tubes".


Trump goes after OO

tgb wrote:This is even stupider than "tubes".

TRUMP: We should be using our brilliant people. Our most brilliant mind to figure a way that ISIS cannot use the internet. And then on second, we should be able to penetrate the internet and find out exactly where ISIS is and everything about ISIS. We can do that if we use our good people.

BLITZER: Let me follow up, Mr. Trump. So, are you open to closing parts of the internet?

TRUMP: I would certainly be open to closing areas where we are at war with somebody. I sure as hell don't want to let people that want to kill us and kill our nation use our internet. Yes, sir. I am.

Trump is a real-estate man. Location, location, location.

Trump / Stevens 2016!

I don't like Rand Paul, but damn did he give the smack down to Trump.

Holman wrote:

hepcat wrote:I honestly don't think Trump is in any way, shape or form a brilliant campaigner. He's just tossing fear based rhetoric out there and whatever resonates with his extremist followers, he focuses on it.

He's the enduring frontrunner who has weathered gaffe after misstep and only gotten stronger. He gets more attention and more exposure than anyone. He has set the terms of the entire race, and everyone else is forced to react to his moves rather than vice-versa. His message is now the party message whether they like it or not. He calls the tune.

And all of this despite the fact that he's an awful human being with an awful message. How is it anything but great campaigning?

I honestly think it has more to do with how disenfranchised his followers are. He's not winning in spite of his awful message, he's winning because of his awful message. Cruz is moving towards the outrageous now (nuke 'em 'til they glow!) and he's seeing a spike. If Trump wins, it won't be because he was a brilliant campaigner, it will be because we've got a large section of America that is scared and irrational and looking for someone they believe is going to vent that anger...no matter how much it destroys our country in the process.

Why has he succeeded when others with similar messages have failed? He was a household name going into the campaign. That's all. The people who follow him have seen him on TV for years. That was enough to give him the boost he needed.

hepcat wrote: I honestly think it has more to do with how disenfranchised his followers are. He's not winning in spite of his awful message, he's winning because of his awful message. Cruz is moving towards the outrageous now (nuke 'em 'til they glow!) and he's seeing a spike. If Trump wins, it won't be because he was a brilliant campaigner, it will be because we've got a large section of America that is scared and irrational and looking for someone they believe is going to vent that anger...no matter how much it destroys our country in the process.

Why has he succeeded when others with similar messages have failed? He was a household name going into the campaign. That's all. The people who follow him have seen him on TV for years. That was enough to give him the boost he needed.

I hate to keep belaboring this point, but Trump is a brilliant campaigner because his campaigning has put him on top. Folks keep wanting to challenge the meaning of "great" or "brilliant" when what we're seeing is real-time redefinition of "campaigning."

The refusal to play the game as once played? That's campaigning now. The stoking of paranoia and hatred? Campaigning. The irrelevance of eloquence? Campaigning. The reality-show disconnection from facts and complexity? That's campaigning.

It's all still in flux, and we can hope that what's being redefined here is merely "campaigning in a GOP nomination race against weak opponents in a climate still afflicted with Obama Derangement Syndrome" and not "American politics, period." But I feel pretty sure that Trump's opponents don't look at what he's doing and write him off because they're campaigning and he's not.