djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706 
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 17, 2016 17:22:54 GMT -5
I wonder how much is clever marketing to his audience and how much is just not having a good vocabulary and writing skills?
The man never reads books, and no doubt has a staff of people to write all his documents for him. IMHO, vocabulary and writing skills are things you lose if you don't use. (That's why my spelling skills suck so much, too many years relying on spellcheck).
So I'm betting his sixth grade level speeches are 50% clever marketing, 25% poor vocabulary and writing skills, and 25% refusal to read off a teleprompter because talking out of your ass is so much more entertaining, even if it means you talk in word salad.
i don't think so. i think he is lazy, for sure. but i also think he knows precisely what he is doing. check post 774. he is extraordinarily clever in ONE dimension. it is not a very.....highly regarded dimension, but it is "a" dimension. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 17, 2016 17:28:46 GMT -5
i think underestimating Trump is a really bad idea. for a long time, i thought that overestimating him is a bad idea, too- but i am no longer convinced that is true. i think the best thing to do is to assume he is the most wicked, the most clever, the most powerful guy on Earth until he is no longer a threat. the more motivated that everyone is to see he gets nowhere near the WH, the easier it will be to ensure that he never gets there.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 17, 2016 17:49:25 GMT -5
i just read an article about Trump's (2nd? 3rd?) campaign retooling, and came away with the following thoughts:
1) this guy really has no idea what he is doing, in terms of campaigning.
2) this is going to further alienate Trump from the establishment, which is fine for his core constituency, but lousy for the campaign.
3) i think i understand what he is up to:
he seems to think he has a media problem. i FERVENTLY disagree. he has done extremely well with the media. he has them following his every move like he is a rock star. in fact, i can't think of a rock star that has gotten this much attention. it is more like a "troubled starlet", like Linday Lohan. and the press is following him around as if they were tabloids. it is quite astonishing what he has accomplished with almost NO money invested, and a lesson to anyone running for office. but i digress....he seems to think he has a media problem, and so he has hired someone that agrees fervently with him: Breitbart. and i think it fits his pattern: when the world is against you, you find a sycophant to prop you up, and reassure you. someone who shares your outlook.
i doubt it will work. in fact, i surmise that it is going to be a very bad move. but who am i, other than (as Trump would probably say) some dumbass on a discussion board?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 18, 2024 0:33:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2016 20:33:46 GMT -5
i think underestimating Trump is a really bad idea. for a long time, i thought that overestimating him is a bad idea, too- but i am no longer convinced that is true. i think the best thing to do is to assume he is the most wicked, the most clever, the most powerful guy on Earth until he is no longer a threat. the more motivated that everyone is to see he gets nowhere near the WH, the easier it will be to ensure that he never gets there. But with Hillary in the running that would be a false assumption... unless you were taking Hillary out of the equation, with the masculine usages of pronouns and only looking at "guys" for your sample group. Why assume something that's provably false? |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,419
|
Post by billisonboard on Aug 17, 2016 21:20:50 GMT -5
i think underestimating Trump is a really bad idea. for a long time, i thought that overestimating him is a bad idea, too- but i am no longer convinced that is true. i think the best thing to do is to assume he is the most wicked, the most clever, the most powerful guy on Earth until he is no longer a threat. the more motivated that everyone is to see he gets nowhere near the WH, the easier it will be to ensure that he never gets there. But with Hillary in the running that would be a false assumption... unless you were taking Hillary out of the equation, with the masculine usages of pronouns and only looking at "guys" for your sample group. Why assume something that's provably false? I fully support making the assumption that djAdvocate suggests for the reason he suggests it. This man can not become the POTUS. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 18, 2024 0:33:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2016 22:08:08 GMT -5
But with Hillary in the running that would be a false assumption... unless you were taking Hillary out of the equation, with the masculine usages of pronouns and only looking at "guys" for your sample group. Why assume something that's provably false? I fully support making the assumption that djAdvocate suggests for the reason he suggests it. This man can not become the POTUS. I don't support his contention because neither can Hillary. She's even worse than he is. And even if you dismiss a lot of the issues against her she only comes up to being neck-and-neck with him. Neither of them is fit to be POTUS. (Assuming you mean "should not"... because obviously if he wins the election he "can") |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 17, 2016 22:31:43 GMT -5
i think underestimating Trump is a really bad idea. for a long time, i thought that overestimating him is a bad idea, too- but i am no longer convinced that is true. i think the best thing to do is to assume he is the most wicked, the most clever, the most powerful guy on Earth until he is no longer a threat. the more motivated that everyone is to see he gets nowhere near the WH, the easier it will be to ensure that he never gets there. But with Hillary in the running that would be a false assumption... unless you were taking Hillary out of the equation, with the masculine usages of pronouns and only looking at "guys" for your sample group. Why assume something that's provably false? i think i already said why, didn't i? |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 17, 2016 23:23:38 GMT -5
the national polls show some softening for Clinton, finally, and another bump up for Trump.
Clinton is off about 1% from her high. she now sits at her lowest level in (2) weeks.
the news is even better for Trump. he is about 1.5% off his low. he is now at a (2) week high.
so, the bleeding has stopped for him.
the state polls will probably also start to drift back his ways. the first ones to watch would be IA and NC.
right now, the situation is totally unchanged. he is behind in (6) states he has to win if he wants to become president. it is big hurdle, but it is not impossible for him. just unlikely.
for now, Clinton is still at 7:2, but she will probably drift back to 3:1, and the tossup states are still FL, NC, OH, and IA, but if she loses some edge in her poll numbers, NV and NH might come back into play.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 17, 2016 23:51:25 GMT -5
for those of you whose eyes glaze over at the odds i post here, let me put it into perspective for you: AS OF TODAY, Clinton stands a better chance of winning TEXAS than Trump does of winning the ELECTION. this was my reaction to that finding. >  |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,667
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 18, 2016 0:00:52 GMT -5
My eyes don't glaze over at the odds, but I do have to keep remembering that it is opposite of the racetrack. There, 4/5 is an odds-on favorite and 8/1 is a longshot.  |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 18, 2024 0:33:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2016 0:01:29 GMT -5
Well... if we're going with odds...
We've got better odds of surviving a direct strike by an asteroid the size of Vesta than we do of having a positive effect by the president, on the country, if either of these two clowns (Hillary AND Trump) are elected.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 18, 2016 0:08:27 GMT -5
My eyes don't glaze over at the odds, but I do have to keep remembering that it is opposite of the racetrack. There, 4/5 is an odds-on favorite and 8/1 is a longshot. yeah, i do it backwards. never was into the ponies. |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,667
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 18, 2016 0:17:48 GMT -5
I remember taking a charter bus down to the track way before I could even legally bet. Twice a week sometimes during the summers once I started driving. And yes, I bet anyway. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 18, 2024 0:33:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2016 1:08:06 GMT -5
As much as I love placing wagers... I've never been to a track or bet on dogs or horses. Way too many variables for my comfort zone.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,667
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 18, 2016 1:27:58 GMT -5
But figuring those out is part of the fun. I used to be a pretty good handicapper...but a lousy bettor. Didn't have enough money at the time to trust my instincts enough. Of course that may have saved me too. Either way, I can't imagine ever betting on the dogs. Gotta go horses. |
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,780
|
Post by steff on Aug 18, 2016 4:09:23 GMT -5
i just read an article about Trump's (2nd? 3rd?) campaign retooling, and came away with the following thoughts: 1) this guy really has no idea what he is doing, in terms of campaigning. 2) this is going to further alienate Trump from the establishment, which is fine for his core constituency, but lousy for the campaign. 3) i think i understand what he is up to: he seems to think he has a media problem. i FERVENTLY disagree. he has done extremely well with the media. he has them following his every move like he is a rock star. in fact, i can't think of a rock star that has gotten this much attention. it is more like a "troubled starlet", like Linday Lohan. and the press is following him around as if they were tabloids. it is quite astonishing what he has accomplished with almost NO money invested, and a lesson to anyone running for office. but i digress....he seems to think he has a media problem, and so he has hired someone that agrees fervently with him: Breitbart. and i think it fits his pattern: when the world is against you, you find a sycophant to prop you up, and reassure you. someone who shares your outlook. i doubt it will work. in fact, i surmise that it is going to be a very bad move. but who am i, other than (as Trump would probably say) some dumbass on a discussion board? It reminds me of the year of everyone watching Britney Spears's break down. Public meltdowns, ambulance rides, shaving her head, smashing the windows, etc. Every day it was another Britney scary moment and everyone was just waiting for her to finally crack up completely or commit suicide. This Trump run reminds me of that year of Britney as far as daily OMG coverage. |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,419
|
Post by billisonboard on Aug 18, 2016 8:12:11 GMT -5
$2 show tickets. A good day was to break even on bets. A great day was when I covered parking and snacks. Wonderful afternoon of entertainment in the sun playing at using your brain at low/no cost.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,758
|
Post by happyhoix on Aug 18, 2016 8:46:04 GMT -5
Well... if we're going with odds... We've got better odds of surviving a direct strike by an asteroid the size of Vesta than we do of having a positive effect by the president, on the country, if either of these two clowns (Hillary AND Trump) are elected. I think most of the posters on this board would agree with that.
Where we would disagree is which nominee would be the least disastrous.
Hillary is more of the same. Trump would be new and exciting in the same way that putting your finger in a light socket is new and exciting.
I don't need to actually put my finger in a light socket to know the consequences would be bad, if not fatal.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,758
|
Post by happyhoix on Aug 18, 2016 8:57:55 GMT -5
he seems to think he has a media problem. i FERVENTLY disagree. he has done extremely well with the media. he has them following his every move like he is a rock star. This is the same reason he hasn't spent any of his money on campaign ads yet. He brags that he can get all the media attention he needs without spending a dime - and this is true, he is dogged by the media, and his every comment and movement is posted in the headlines, as long as he acts outrageously.
His mistake, though, is thinking there is no bad publicity. I think this is because his previous life experience was through his reality TV show, and for those kinds of shows it's true - there is no bad publicity. The more people fight and act outrageously, the more arrests and scandals and hair pulling on those kinds of shows, the higher their ratings are, and good ratings are what keep you on the air. High ratings = winning.
Unfortunately, high winnings don't = winning when it comes to the POTUS. If it did, Squeezy or Fuzzy or whoever from that Jersey Shore show would have been POTUS already. People like to gawp at train wrecks, either actual train wrecks or metaphorical ones, but they don't want a train wreck as their kid's teacher, or their spouse, or their minister, or their POTUS. Trump doesn't get that, and I don't think he can figure that out, at least not before the election. I think even after the election he'll be reviewing all the articles about him, the TV interviews, the talking head opinions about him, and wondering why, since he got all this great free coverage, he still ended up losing.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,337
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Aug 18, 2016 9:26:02 GMT -5
he seems to think he has a media problem. i FERVENTLY disagree. he has done extremely well with the media. he has them following his every move like he is a rock star. This is the same reason he hasn't spent any of his money on campaign ads yet. He brags that he can get all the media attention he needs without spending a dime - and this is true, he is dogged by the media, and his every comment and movement is posted in the headlines, as long as he acts outrageously.
His mistake, though, is thinking there is no bad publicity. I think this is because his previous life experience was through his reality TV show, and for those kinds of shows it's true - there is no bad publicity. The more people fight and act outrageously, the more arrests and scandals and hair pulling on those kinds of shows, the higher their ratings are, and good ratings are what keep you on the air. High ratings = winning.
Unfortunately, high winnings don't = winning when it comes to the POTUS. If it did, Squeezy or Fuzzy or whoever from that Jersey Shore show would have been POTUS already. People like to gawp at train wrecks, either actual train wrecks or metaphorical ones, but they don't want a train wreck as their kid's teacher, or their spouse, or their minister, or their POTUS. Trump doesn't get that, and I don't think he can figure that out, at least not before the election. I think even after the election he'll be reviewing all the articles about him, the TV interviews, the talking head opinions about him, and wondering why, since he got all this great free coverage, he still ended up losing.
I think he knows it is no longer good press, but he's going to double down on the low road. Hence the hire from Breitbart to the top of his campaign. If he's trying to lose while looking like he's trying to win, he might be succeeding in that attempt.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 18, 2016 11:26:39 GMT -5
i just read an article about Trump's (2nd? 3rd?) campaign retooling, and came away with the following thoughts: 1) this guy really has no idea what he is doing, in terms of campaigning. 2) this is going to further alienate Trump from the establishment, which is fine for his core constituency, but lousy for the campaign. 3) i think i understand what he is up to: he seems to think he has a media problem. i FERVENTLY disagree. he has done extremely well with the media. he has them following his every move like he is a rock star. in fact, i can't think of a rock star that has gotten this much attention. it is more like a "troubled starlet", like Linday Lohan. and the press is following him around as if they were tabloids. it is quite astonishing what he has accomplished with almost NO money invested, and a lesson to anyone running for office. but i digress....he seems to think he has a media problem, and so he has hired someone that agrees fervently with him: Breitbart. and i think it fits his pattern: when the world is against you, you find a sycophant to prop you up, and reassure you. someone who shares your outlook. i doubt it will work. in fact, i surmise that it is going to be a very bad move. but who am i, other than (as Trump would probably say) some dumbass on a discussion board? It reminds me of the year of everyone watching Britney Spears's break down. Public meltdowns, ambulance rides, shaving her head, smashing the windows, etc. Every day it was another Britney scary moment and everyone was just waiting for her to finally crack up completely or commit suicide. This Trump run reminds me of that year of Britney as far as daily OMG coverage. i thought of that right after i posted this. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 18, 2016 18:50:38 GMT -5
Clinton's lead is now down to 5.8%
what is interesting about it is how consistent it is. this is the first time i have seen all three surveys of the polls (C -v- T, C -v- T -v- J, and C -v- T -v- J -v- S) with exactly the same number.
so, Clinton continues to decline -vs- Trump- this is her worst showing since August 2nd, and Trumps best. it should also be noted that Johnson's polling average of 8.6% is his best for the campaign, and that Stein is also up a notch at 3.2% (though she is well below her high of 4.8% reached in June).
the softening is sufficient that i am moving Nevada into the "Tossup" category. so, we now have (5) states that Clinton leads in, but that Trump could possibly win: NV, OH, FL, NC, and IA. he still needs to move NH back a few notches to have a real shot in the election.
edit: oh, i am moving Clinton back to 3:1 favourite from 7:2 today. i have reason to suspect that the bleeding stops right about here, but we'll see. there is little sign of it in the "trends".
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,667
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 18, 2016 19:59:30 GMT -5
$2 show tickets. A good day was to break even on bets. A great day was when I covered parking and snacks. Wonderful afternoon of entertainment in the sun playing at using your brain at low/no cost. Well, I would go a little higher than that. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 18, 2024 0:33:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2016 20:17:19 GMT -5
Well... if we're going with odds... We've got better odds of surviving a direct strike by an asteroid the size of Vesta than we do of having a positive effect by the president, on the country, if either of these two clowns (Hillary AND Trump) are elected. I think most of the posters on this board would agree with that.
Where we would disagree is which nominee would be the least disastrous.
Hillary is more of the same. Trump would be new and exciting in the same way that putting your finger in a light socket is new and exciting.
I don't need to actually put my finger in a light socket to know the consequences would be bad, if not fatal.
The problem is this: With Hillary "more of the same" is like the patient that get's this from his Doctor: "You only have 8 months to live... unless you make drastic changes to your lifestyle"... so your "more of the same" will give us consequences that are just as "bad, if not fatal" as that light socket you mention. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 18, 2016 21:25:19 GMT -5
oh jesus. do we really have to be this dramatic?
if Trump wins, the Republic won't fail.
if Clinton wins, the Republic won't fail.
vote whoever you damn well like.
sheesh.
|
|
Pants
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 19:26:44 GMT -5
Posts: 7,579
|
Post by Pants on Aug 18, 2016 22:40:06 GMT -5
oh jesus. do we really have to be this dramatic? if Trump wins, the Republic won't fail. if Clinton wins, the Republic won't fail. vote whoever you damn well like. sheesh. Are you sure you're on the right board?  |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 18, 2024 0:33:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2016 2:44:17 GMT -5
oh jesus. do we really have to be this dramatic? if Trump wins, the Republic won't fail. if Clinton wins, the Republic won't fail. vote whoever you damn well like. sheesh. Who's being dramatic? By the way... this will be the inaugural theme song... no matter who wins: ETA:   |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 19, 2016 10:21:37 GMT -5
oh jesus. do we really have to be this dramatic? if Trump wins, the Republic won't fail. if Clinton wins, the Republic won't fail. vote whoever you damn well like. sheesh. Who's being dramatic? By the way... this will be the inaugural theme song... no matter who wins: ETA: not just you. but the difference is that i am not sure you are being dramatic for dramatic sake. please tell me you are. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 19, 2016 13:18:42 GMT -5
ok, here is today's update, and i am calling some states for trump and clinton.
safely clinton: DC, HI, MD, VT, MA, RI, CA, NY, ME1, IL, DE, WA, CT, NJ, OR
safely trump: WY, OK, ID, WV, AL, NE, LA, AR, KY, TN, UT, KS, MS, TX, IN
i think you will see the problem for Trump in that list. there are not a lot of EV there (texas excepted).
clinton's lead is now 6%, and falling, so this all could change- but as of today she is still 3:1 favourite.
edit: i forgot to mention why i posted this. this has to do with quality of campaigning.
if EITHER candidate does anything more than cursory campaigning and advertising in the
states listed above, they are wasting resources. the exception would be "national advertising campaigns" that
will air in all (50) states, regardless of target.
i would spend 100% of my resources on the remaining (19) contests, were i either of these candidates.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 18, 2024 0:33:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2016 20:29:36 GMT -5
Who's being dramatic? By the way... this will be the inaugural theme song... no matter who wins: ETA: not just you. but the difference is that i am not sure you are being dramatic for dramatic sake. please tell me you are. Maybe a teeny-tiny bit. |
|
