Here's How Donald Trump Could Become President

[4est_4est_Gump]

The about-face he's getting ready to do on immigration isn't going to win him new voters - it's just going to piss off his fans.

Starting to think that he'll be screaming, "C'mon people - we can still win this!" during Hillary's January inaugural ceremony.

*chuckle*

If Hillary were changing positions, the mantra would be, well of course, everyone knows that in the primaries you pander to your base and then when you get to the general you pivot to the center, which The Donald is doing and Hillary is not because she's terrified that she will alienate those Sanders voters who are still willing to hold their noses and vote Democrat.

 

[kelseygurl98]

im just sick of it to be honest , cant wait till its over lol

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Here you go Toubab...



Another right-wingnut Pro Trump win prediction:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/billrobinson/the-five-reasons-donald-t_b_11633744.html

 

[NeverEndingMe]

I'm sure that Hillary feels entitled ... that America owes her. that hillary as the "right" to be potus and its the "right" wing holding her down keeping her away from her "destiny"

clearly, Hillary is bat ass crazy

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I'm sure that Hillary feels entitled ... that America owes her. that hillary as the "right" to be potus and its the "right" wing holding her down keeping her away from her "destiny"

clearly, Hillary is bat ass crazy

So you see yourself in her...

 

[Adre]

Hell, he's been stiffing vendors for years. No surprise he plans to stiff his early supporters as well.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The Enthusiasm Gap

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-voter-registration-republican-battleground-227216

 

[Wrong Element]

I wasn't giving the definition of a push-poll. I assume most people with any interest in politics, advertising or human persuasion are familiar with no the technique and it's widespread application.

You will notice that because there was no colon after the word push-poll.

If I say to you I think we should get a Buick and load the trunk with the following items...you would come back to me and say that's not the definition of a Buick, would you?

As to your assertion that perceptions of who the market leader in any endeavor is, does not have an impact on humans suggests that the bandwagon approach should be abandoned in all propaganda and advertising. Do you have no concept what about human psychology as it relates to influencing perceptions?

Such techniques work on a sub-conscious level and your idea that for members self-reporting on the sources of their perceptions would be accurate is silly to be polite about it.

What makes you think that you or I are immunize to the effects of persuasion?

I think those kinds of techniques might persuade someone to drink Budweiser instead of Coors. But they're probably not going to convince you to start drinking beer if you aren't already doing that.

People do like to root for the winner, which is why the state of Ohio is filled with Pittsburgh Steelers fans who should all be put to death ASAP. But people have pretty strong views about politics. Those who don't are probably not voting at all. I've voted for plenty of candidates I've known ahead of time would lose.

If this sort of bandwagon effect took place, then you'd assume a couple of things would happen: undecided voters would move in droves towards the candidate leading in the polls as the election drew closer; and the candidate leading in the polls would routinely do better in actual voting than the later polls suggested he would do. This doesn't occur, or at least doesn't occur a disproportionate amount of the time.

 

[Sean Renaud]

That's not what Conager is talking about Element.

-snip-​

I'd even like to see it done with the Libertarian and Green candidates being behind, but with a reasonable chance for winning.

Given the negatives of both frontrunners wouldn't Johnson clean up if it was presumed that tbe longstanding "wasted vote" meme did not apply this cycle?

Jill Stein has some wacky ideas mostly about vaccines ( don't think free college is truly viable but I'm more than happy to see her detail that more) but I wouldn't vote for her because we do have a binary system. A vote for anybody other than Hillary Clinton is a vote (or at least half a vote) for Trump. That's because she isn't a viable candidate. If she was out polling Clinton (or even in a genuine dead heat) fuck yeah I'd change my vote.

At the same time if by some act of God Hillary was trailing and was between Trump and Johnson I'd quickly learn to "Make America Great Again".

For me, and I presume everybody out there who is voting "against" one candidate instead of for (and truth be told I don't hate Hillary, I can vote for her with no shame) a candidate at some point it boils down to math of who can win and who can't. It's not quite the same as how Californians magically remember we even have a hockey team when they start winning, and how the Lakers are over rated and everybody is a Clipper's fan. . .if they're winning.

 

[toubab]

Here you go Toubab...



Another right-wingnut Pro Trump win prediction:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/billrobinson/the-five-reasons-donald-t_b_11633744.html

Interesting Huffpo article. The author must feel like a fish out of water.

 

[xbb]

if the outright corruption and outright criminal actions and ineptitude of GimpCuntClinton hasn't dented her armor

NOTHING will

But hey, didya read the EXPOSE BY WAPO today?

Yup, ANOTHER haircut story from 55 yrs ago

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Interesting Huffpo article. The author must feel like a fish out of water.

He won't be welcome at NRO either.

 

[Wrong Element]

That's not what Conager is talking about Element.



Jill Stein has some wacky ideas mostly about vaccines ( don't think free college is truly viable but I'm more than happy to see her detail that more) but I wouldn't vote for her because we do have a binary system. A vote for anybody other than Hillary Clinton is a vote (or at least half a vote) for Trump. That's because she isn't a viable candidate. If she was out polling Clinton (or even in a genuine dead heat) fuck yeah I'd change my vote.

At the same time if by some act of God Hillary was trailing and was between Trump and Johnson I'd quickly learn to "Make America Great Again".

For me, and I presume everybody out there who is voting "against" one candidate instead of for (and truth be told I don't hate Hillary, I can vote for her with no shame) a candidate at some point it boils down to math of who can win and who can't. It's not quite the same as how Californians magically remember we even have a hockey team when they start winning, and how the Lakers are over rated and everybody is a Clipper's fan. . .if they're winning.

I sort of get it now. Of course -- and I know people upset about what the polls are currently saying will think this is very naive of me -- it's not the job of pollsters to change public opinion; it's their job to tell us what public opinion actually is. What Conager seems to be talking about is a social science experiment. There might be a reason a pollster would want to try that -- there's value in knowing the factors that can influence the answers you get -- but not in the middle of a genuine campaign.

And of course, it would have to be plausible on some level. Not that either one has this sort of money, but if the Johnson or Stein campaigns tried a push poll -- say, they called people in Pennsylvania and said, "If I told you that Gary Johnson was currently neck-and-neck with both Trump and Clinton in Pennsylvania, would that make you more likely or less likely to vote for Johnson?" -- people would laugh at you and hang up.

True, it's because we do have what is effectively a two-party system that you don't have more people voting for Johnson and Stein -- and why I continue to believe that neither one will do nearly as well on Election Day as polls that include both currently suggest they will. But voting specifically to prevent a "greater of two evils" from winning is very different than going, "Well, I don't like either the Republican or the Democrat, so I'm going to vote for the one who looks like they will win so I can brag about it for the next four years." If you're that indifferent to who wins, it seems to me very unlikely you'd be voting in the first place, or you'd be happy voting for the Libertarian or Green who really is closer to what you truly believe.

 

[toubab]

I sort of get it now. Of course -- and I know people upset about what the polls are currently saying will think this is very naive of me -- it's not the job of pollsters to change public opinion; it's their job to tell us what public opinion actually is. What Conager seems to be talking about is a social science experiment. There might be a reason a pollster would want to try that -- there's value in knowing the factors that can influence the answers you get -- but not in the middle of a genuine campaign.

And of course, it would have to be plausible on some level. Not that either one has this sort of money, but if the Johnson or Stein campaigns tried a push poll -- say, they called people in Pennsylvania and said, "If I told you that Gary Johnson was currently neck-and-neck with both Trump and Clinton in Pennsylvania, would that make you more likely or less likely to vote for Johnson?" -- people would laugh at you and hang up.

True, it's because we do have what is effectively a two-party system that you don't have more people voting for Johnson and Stein -- and why I continue to believe that neither one will do nearly as well on Election Day as polls that include both currently suggest they will. But voting specifically to prevent a "greater of two evils" from winning is very different than going, "Well, I don't like either the Republican or the Democrat, so I'm going to vote for the one who looks like they will win so I can brag about it for the next four years." If you're that indifferent to who wins, it seems to me very unlikely you'd be voting in the first place, or you'd be happy voting for the Libertarian or Green who really is closer to what you truly believe.

People tend to go with the crowd, not against it. It's always been that way. Not everyone is that way, of course, but most are.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

In a way, you are right, but we also see, and there was a good article about this this morning...

~give me a second~

http://nypost.com/2016/08/21/american-journalism-is-collapsing-before-our-eyes/

This from a veteran reporter.

I believe that the fear of Trump has caused everyone leaning Left to go fucking insane. I think they are willing to slant the early polling and the stories it creates to defeat Trump preemptively and then as the election grows closer, they will get more honest to preserve their reputations, having already done the damage. If he wins, a real long shot at this point, then most of them will be scrambling to explain how the people fooled them by misleading them and lying to them...



... or how the overconfidence they created suppressed Democrat voter turn out.

But that's just something I feel, not that I can prove, but I think the Left looks at this as a burn all of the bridges election for the only thing they wish to win at this point is the Supreme Court.

 

[xbb]

In a way, you are right, but we also see, and there was a good article about this this morning...

~give me a second~

http://nypost.com/2016/08/21/american-journalism-is-collapsing-before-our-eyes/

This from a veteran reporter.

I believe that the fear of Trump has caused everyone leaning Left to go fucking insane. I think they are willing to slant the early polling and the stories it creates to defeat Trump preemptively and then as the election grows closer, they will get more honest to preserve their reputations, having already done the damage. If he wins, a real long shot at this point, then most of them will be scrambling to explain how the people fooled them by misleading them and lying to them...



... or how the overconfidence they created suppressed Democrat voter turn out.

But that's just something I feel, not that I can prove, but I think the Left looks at this as a burn all of the bridges election for the only thing they wish to win at this point is the Supreme Court.

was it different for

McCain

Romney

Bush

or any other R

NO!

 

[Adre]

Build that wall! Build that wall! Build that wall!

 

[Wrong Element]

Trump is in Ohio again today (lucky us), but he's canceled several other upcoming events.


I have no idea why, but "many people are saying" that there must be some sort of health-related reason.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Trump is in Ohio again today (lucky us), but he's canceled several other upcoming events.


I have no idea why, but "many people are saying" that there must be some sort of health-related reason.

Link?

 

[Adre]

Trump is in Ohio again today (lucky us), but he's canceled several other upcoming events.


I have no idea why, but "many people are saying" that there must be some sort of health-related reason.

Plus he had an immigration speech planned for Colorado, and now he's not sure what his policy is. His new campaign manager will let him know when she decides what it should be.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Link?

He's called it off?

Oh, I looked it up.

Lies by omission. At least Hillary is bold enough to lie to our faces...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

When Obama and Hillary evolve, it is a good thing...



When the Democrat Trump evolves, it is a bad thing?

 

[Adre]

When Obama and Hillary evolve, it is a good thing...



When the Democrat Trump evolves, it is a bad thing?

Evolve? Right. He had one policy. Build the wall, Mexico will pay for it, deport 11 million many of who are rapists and criminals. How stupid his early fanatics will feel!

 

[Sean Renaud]

When Obama and Hillary evolve, it is a good thing...



When the Democrat Trump evolves, it is a bad thing?

First, Obama and Hillary don't evolve. I'd love if you found someone who actually believes they changed their opinions. The only question is what is the lie? If I had to hazard a guess Hillary is anti-gay but followed her party and the nation and Obama honestly gave no shits about the subject but when the nation ran over and screamed "We did it Mr. Obama! We did it!" He replied. "Uh. . . I got Osama a few. . .what are all the rainbows. Oh yes Suzy I love the fa. . homo. . . .WOO PARTY REMEMBER ME"

Second, it is always good when a leader comes around to my way of thinking.

Third, Trump doesn't seem (as of this exact moment) to know what his plan is. If this weren't a core issue of his it would be excusable. I mean his plan for Obamacare seems to be he wants his name on it and some other tweaks. He could about face on that and nobody would notice.

 

[toubab]

I read the results of the most recent Monmouth poll in Ohio and it prompts me to say something here about polling in general. The raw vote in that random poll showed Trump ahead by two. The pollster weighted the results, which is something virtually all pollsters do, and announced Clinton is ahead by four. The pollster may be right about that, but the pollster may also be wrong. It's really nothing more than a guess. Perhaps an informed guess, but still a guess. I suppose the pollster thought it was a bad sample. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn't. Nobody really knows.

I still like the methodology of the USC/LA Times poll. It's basically the same sample over and over again. Good or bad. And nobody knows whether it's a good sample or a bad one, at this point.